Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Postal Services (Scotland)

Michael Weir: What recent representations she has received in respect of postal services in Scotland.

Patricia Hewitt: The Department receives representations on postal services issues from a wide range of people and institutions, many of which concern services in Scotland.

Michael Weir: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will be aware of the less than stellar performance of Royal Mail management in meeting delivery targets over the summer. Is she aware, however, of the reports in Scotland that the management have again floated the idea of abandoning the universal service obligation, which is so important to rural areas of Scotland? Can she tell us if she has had formal approaches on this point, and will she assure the House that she will not agree to any such proposal?

Patricia Hewitt: The universal service obligation is written into law as a result of changes made by our Government. Of course we are not going to abandon that. I have had no formal representations on this issue.
	Although, on the issue of quality of service, there was very poor performance earlier in the year—about which all of us are unhappy—I am pleased to say that in more recent months that quality of service has been improving significantly. In Dundee—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure about this—the delivery of first-class post on the following day has gone up to almost 93 per cent., which is one of the best performances in the country.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State may be aware that the particular postal service of greatest concern to my constituents in Orkney and Shetland is the parcel post. Since deregulation of the parcel post, mail order companies in particular have increasingly either refused to deliver to addresses off mainland Britain, or have charged extra for it. Can I ask the Secretary of State when the Government will get to grips with that issue and ensure that people in island communities can enjoy the same level of service as those on the mainland?

Patricia Hewitt: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point on behalf of his constituents. There has, of course, always been a problem with meeting the quality of service targets in those most remote communities, particularly island communities. Post Office management are working on that, and certainly I and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), will draw it to their attention again.

Business Start-ups

Jim Cunningham: How many new business start-ups there were in Coventry, South in the last year for which figures are available.

Nigel Griffiths: In Coventry, it is estimated that there were 1,800 business start-ups in 2003. The latest official figures based on VAT registrations show that 620 businesses registered for VAT in Coventry, which is a welcome increase on the previous year.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but may I ask what assessment he has made of the potential withdrawal of Jaguar from Coventry, and what the impact would be on small businesses, bearing in mind the fact that more than 4,000 jobs could be at stake were Jaguar to pull out of Coventry? What assistance has Ford had in term of grants over the past 18 years from Government?

Nigel Griffiths: I am not aware that any decision has yet been taken. Jaguar, I understand, is considering its operations, but is rightly insisting first on briefing its work force on the company's future production plans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, discuss the implications of any decision with the company as soon as an announcement—if any—is made.

Brian Cotter: The Minister refers to increasing numbers of people going into business. Is he aware of figures that I have received from the Library this week that since 1992, the number of young people aged between 16 and 29 starting their own business has fallen by some 39 per cent? I ask the Minister to consider that in view of the fact that we need to encourage enterprise, particularly among young people. Will he also address the great concern that people who go to university, whom we need to start businesses, will be burdened by debt after university and will therefore be unable to get started?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide, but perhaps the Minister can answer some part of the question.

Nigel Griffiths: In relation to business start-ups in Coventry and elsewhere, I do not recognise those figures at all. Last year, 63,000 young graduates started businesses. Last week, Barclays published a survey of new business start-ups, which showed that 288,000 businesses started in the first six months of the year, an increase of some 19 per cent. on last year.
	Last year's figure of 455,000 new businesses represented a 19 per cent. increase on the previous year, the largest since Barclays began its surveys in 1988. Both start-ups and the Government's record are very strong.

Michael Foster: As my hon. Friend will know, many businesses starting up in Coventry will be there to support the motor industry and Jaguar in particular. Will he and the Secretary of State impress on the Ford Motor Company that it risks losing the distinctive marque—the Britishness—of the Jaguar if it is seen rolling off a production line somewhere in Detroit?

Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend speaks with much authority, having worked at the Browns Lane plant for many years. I fully appreciate that the smaller companies—small and medium-sized enterprises, of which there are dozens in the supply chain—depend on that level of work. That is why, as part of its manufacturing review a few years ago—the first major review for 30 years—the Department focused on the issue, and the automotive sector has benefited. None the less, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the implications of any cuts in any factory on the supply chain and on SMEs.

Industrial Competitiveness

John MacDougall: What measures she is taking to ensure that UK industry is competitive; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: Since the implementation of the Government's manufacturing strategy in 2002, a range of measures has been taken to improve business performance and competitiveness. For example, the manufacturing advisory service has become a huge success as a source of practical help for manufacturers throughout England and Wales, generating more than £67 million of added value since 2002—around £100,000 for each company with which it has worked. We have also doubled our support for science and innovation. In June 2004, we announced a 10-year science and innovation investment framework, giving a sustained long-term boost to science funding.

John MacDougall: I am grateful for that response. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continually examine areas in which we compete in view of developments in countries such as China, where £50 a week is considered a good wage? Should we not consider the impact of that on our ability to compete in whichever markets seem to be in the best interests of the country's development, and must not our response to that challenge be based on our educational and training abilities and, indeed, our inventiveness?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has identified the key challenge for manufacturers—the global competition that they face. He is absolutely right: we cannot compete in the world today on the basis of low wages, nor should we want to. As he says, we must compete on the basis of innovation and high skills, building on our inventiveness. That was the key point in the progress report on the Government's manufacturing strategy, which we published in July. Also, through the manufacturing forum that we are to establish we will chase progress on our action plan.

Mark Field: As the Minister will recognise, since 1997 Britain has fallen rapidly down the world competitiveness league table in comparison with other leading industrial nations. Why does she think that has happened?

Jacqui Smith: What I recognise is that many independent assessors acknowledge that the United Kingdom is actually one of the most competitive and best places in the world in which to do business. They also recognise that under the hon. Gentleman's party we saw the decimation of our manufacturing industry and a failure to invest in the things that make a difference—skills and innovation. I am afraid that the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. Their proposals for cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must stop.

John McFall: The Minister will be aware that for the UK to be competitive, good corporate governance is essential. Auditing is a central part of that. My right hon. Friend will also know of the campaign by the big four accountancy firms to cap auditor liability. Will she cast a wary eye over it before the Government give in to this case of special pleading?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend will know from the discussions last week, from the discussions this week in Committee on the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill and from the consultation last December, that we have set out clearly what our objectives for audit need to be. Those are a competitive audit market, the ability for businesses to get audits and ensuring that quality is raised. We will judge any proposals for changes to auditor liability against those objectives. We set out the details of what we will and will not accept in the written ministerial statement last week. We are prepared to look at further measures that would pursue those objectives. We are clear that that is what we need in terms of any reform.

Stephen O'Brien: It is the vast gulf between what the Government say and what they do that is undermining UK competitiveness. To be precise and to give the answer that the Minister should have given my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), we know from the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness ranking that the UK has slipped from fourth to 15th place since Labour came to office, not least through the over-regulation of British business under this Government.
	Let us consider the use of sunset clauses, which put time limits on business regulations, for example. The 2001 Labour party manifesto, to which all Labour Members signed up, pledged to use sunset clauses. The Cabinet Office has issued guidelines to civil servants telling them that they
	"must always consider whether sunsetting . . . is appropriate".
	Why, then, did the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise describe sunset clauses in June 2004 as "the quack cure"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want shorter questions than that. That will do from the hon. Gentleman.

Jacqui Smith: I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the World Bank study of 145 countries, entitled "Doing Business in 2005", which placed the UK top in the EU with the best business conditions. It said that
	"all the top countries regulate but they"—
	the UK—
	"do so in less costly and burdensome ways."
	We will not make any apology for regulating to ensure decent working conditions in this country. The hon. Gentleman, through his sunset clauses, wants to take those opportunities away from our work force.

Stephen O'Brien: Well, that is another broken promise from the 2001 Labour party manifesto. There is not a single example of a sunset clause being used, and on average there have been 4,000-odd regulations a year under Labour.
	Let us take one other example of the threat to the UK's competitiveness. Does the Minister agree that if she scraps Britain's opt-out from the EU working time directive preventing people from working more than 48 hours a week, our constituents will be justified in concluding that she will be abolishing the chance for hard-working men and women in this country to do overtime?

Jacqui Smith: On top of the decent working conditions that we put in place, we recognise the importance of flexibility in the labour market and the ability for workers to choose with respect to the opt-out. That is the position that we have taken in our negotiations in Europe. It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to lecture us on employment when it is under this Government that there are 1.9 million more people in work, and it was under the hon. Gentleman's Government that people were thrown on the scrap heap.

Jonathan R Shaw: In order to continue to be competitive, many intensive energy industries, especially the paper industry, are keen to move to combined heat and power, but at present it is not cost-effective for them to do that. The Government published their CHP framework in April. Is my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on whether any progress has been made on that framework?

Jacqui Smith: Perhaps I can provide my hon. Friend subsequently with some more detail about the progress on that, but the important point is that we must, in our energy policy, both deliver the environmental objectives that we have set out—we are working across Government, including with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that—and provide the security of supply and the energy options necessary to ensure that our industry is successful.

British Energy

Andrew Stunell: What recent assessment she has made of the (a) environmental and (b) economic performance of British Energy.

Mike O'Brien: British Energy is subject to stringent environmental regulation. The Environment Agency raised some concerns about British Energy's environmental performance, but the company is working closely with the agency to address those concerns. British Energy's economic performance is regularly assessed as part of its current restructuring.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He is the sixth Minister with responsibility for energy in seven years; I hope that he enjoys his stay, however long or short it might be.
	Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the Public Accounts Committee report on British Energy transactions, and do the Government intend to accept those recommendations? Can he assure the House that he will resist the shareholder revolt, which is seeking to overturn the arrangements that have been made, and does he agree that it is very important to safeguard taxpayers' money and the environment of the United Kingdom?

Mike O'Brien: Of course it is important to protect the UK environment; however, the Liberal Democrats' policy—which is, it seems, to get rid of the Department of Trade and Industry—would undermine that objective. We have seen the PAC report, which we welcome, and we will respond to it in detail in the normal way. I should point out, however, that the privatisation of British Energy undertaken in 1996 involved the traditional structure and left the Government with few tools with which to mitigate any risk. So many of the problems that have arisen since can be laid at the door of those who created that privatisation. On restructuring and the views of shareholders, we are watching carefully what is happening, and we have a great deal of interest in ensuring that such restructuring is carried out effectively.

Bill Tynan: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is interested in doing away not only with the DTI but with nuclear energy. Is my hon. Friend aware that if we had substituted gas-fired power stations for British Energy production, we would have created an extra 27 million tonnes of carbon emissions from August 2003 to August 2004? Is he not concerned about our being dependent on gas in future, and our losing energy production capacity in this country?

Mike O'Brien: We need to ensure that we have diverse sources of energy, and we intend to do so as part of our strategy. That will include developing renewables, for example, which can make a substantial contribution. However, the Government are not committed to building new nuclear power stations because new build is currently economically unattractive and important issues such as disposal of nuclear waste need to be resolved. Any decision to proceed with nuclear build in future must be based on a full public consultation.

Robert Key: Does the Minister agree that British Energy needs all the help and support that it can get as it faces the future, and that we need to start building a consensus on the energy gap that we face, on Kyoto, and on the question of where we are going to derive our energy source from? We therefore need to encourage a sensible public debate, based on science and good information. If we do not encourage the British nuclear industry, we are likely to see—in addition to the Liberal Democrats wishing to cut electricity cables from France, through which we receive nuclear-generated energy—bids from Electricité de France to build nuclear power stations in this country, because we will have lost the capability.

Mike O'Brien: I certainly agree that we need to have a broad-based debate on how to reach our emissions targets. I welcome the various contributions that have been made in the past week; indeed, we heard very strongly from the Prime Minister on these issues. The Government have shown that we are prepared to take the practical decisions necessary to meet those emissions targets, and we intend to continue developing our renewables policy and efficiency targets. There will doubtless be a debate on nuclear energy in due course, but at this stage we are not committed to new nuclear power station build.

Parmjit Dhanda: When considering the economic implications of our policy regarding British Energy, will my hon. Friend continue to take my constituents into consideration? British Energy employs 1,000 people in my constituency, and they welcome the support that the Government have given—not least the provision of £500 million in loan payments, as and when required. The Liberal Democrats oppose that policy, without which unemployment in my constituency would double. Such opposition is doubtless supported by Jeremy Hilton, who is the Liberal Democrat candidate for Gloucester at the forthcoming general election.

Mike O'Brien: We have seen historically that the Liberal Democrats jump on any old passing bandwagon. I would say to my hon. Friend that the Government's aim is to ensure that the restructuring of British Energy is done effectively. We need to work with the company and engage with the unions to ensure that the restructuring is effective and that British Energy has a future. That will, in the long term, protect the jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is our hope, so we must ensure that the restructuring is undertaken effectively.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome the Minister to his new role and pay tribute to his predecessor. I wish them both well for the future. I remind the Minister, however, that shareholders did not lose out because of the privatisation of British Energy; it is the restructuring that is in question. Given the rise in electricity prices and the subsequent better financial position of British Energy, will the Minister give due consideration to the revised proposals for restructuring to ensure that all stakeholders get a fair deal, particularly the 230,000 individual shareholders?

Mike O'Brien: We want to ensure that the restructuring is carried out in a way that looks to the interests of those who work for British Energy and ensures that the company can continue to operate so that shareholders feel that they have a fair deal. However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the Public Accounts Committee has expressed concern about the way in which the privatisation was carried out. Under that privatisation, the Government retained no rights of information or control over the company's decision making. The PAC criticised aspects of the privatisation process, so it will be interesting to see whether the Conservatives continue to defend their actions.
	It is clear that we are now talking about a private sector restructuring of British Energy. The Government are watching how that is happening and we want it to succeed. We will remain engaged in the process, but in the end it is being done in the private sector. We want to ensure that the British people—the consumers—get a good deal, as well as the shareholders.

David Taylor: The Prime Minister has described global warming as the most serious environmental threat to the planet, and we know that a major accelerator is the emission of carbon dioxide and other carbon gases. British Energy has pointed out that the generation of about 64 TWh—or 64,000 GWh—by its nuclear power stations avoids the production and generation of about 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Does the Minister believe that the Government should keep well under review, on a regular basis, their attitude towards nuclear power?

Mike O'Brien: Yes. As I have already said, we operate on the basis of the energy policy set out in our White Paper, which keeps the nuclear option there in the long term. At the moment, however, our view is that it is not the most economically viable approach and there is no investor interest on a substantial scale in new build, so our aim is to ensure that we move towards our emission targets by developing renewables and through energy efficiency. Those are the areas in which we can make substantial progress now. We may look at other options in the future, but that remains to be seen.

Post Office Closures

Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the appeals mechanism in relation to post office closures under the network reinvention programme.

Patricia Hewitt: Proposed closures of urban post offices are considered in accordance with the code of practice agreed by the Post Office and Postwatch. That includes an escalation procedure for handling cases where Postwatch strongly opposes a closure. Cases are escalated for consideration at senior levels up to and including the chief executive of the Post Office and the chairman of Postwatch.

Vincent Cable: Is the Secretary of State aware that almost every appeal against urban post office closures is being rejected, regardless of the strength of the case or the backing of Postwatch? Is not the reason for that the fact that the group of people making the decisions on closures is the same as the one hearing appeals?

Patricia Hewitt: When the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), was responsible for this matter, he strengthened the consultation and escalation process, and that has worked well. But the hon. Gentleman not only wants to scrap the DTI, he wants to privatise the Post Office. He was the author of a Liberal Democrat policy paper that was voted on by his party conference, and which proposed moving to the privatised Dutch model, even though there are only half as many post offices per head of population in the Netherlands as in the UK. If he wants to help post offices, I suggest that he talks to his Liberal friends in Aberdeen council, who have stopped people being able to pay their council tax, council rents and business rates at the post office. That has made it more difficult for post offices to stay open, and it shows that we must watch what the Liberals do, not listen to what they say.

Bill O'Brien: Can my right hon. Friend tell me who is responsible for responding to appeals from Members of Parliament for an audit of the assurance that 95 per cent. of the population will live within one mile of a post office? In my constituency, it is estimated that 25 per cent. of people live more than a mile away from a post office. Who is responsible for auditing the assurances that have been given, as neither Postwatch nor the Post Office take responsibility for that?

Patricia Hewitt: Postwatch takes its responsibilities enormously seriously. Under the urban reinvention programme, Postwatch staff go and look at all the post offices proposed for closure, and take note of where alternative offices are situated. The problem is very simple: in too many places, nine or 10 post offices serve the same population living within a mile. The pledge that 95 per cent. of people will be within one mile of their nearest post office applies across the whole country. The Post Office and Postwatch, the consumer champion, have the responsibility of ensuring that that target is achieved.

Owen Paterson: On one hot day last year, I visited 28 post offices in my constituency. Nearly every one is under threat, thanks to the complete mess that the Government have made of the benefit card system. I took a delegation to see the new Financial Secretary, when he was responsible for these matters, and he confirmed that he had made it a requirement that there should be no avoidable closures. Will the Secretary of State confirm what an avoidance closure is, and will she say how she intends to allow post offices to make representations?

Patricia Hewitt: Perhaps I could just point out to the hon. Gentleman that before the Government started investing in and saving rural post offices, they were closing at the rate of about 400 a year. We have brought that number down to just over 100 a year by imposing on the Post Office a requirement that rural post offices should not be closed unless that is absolutely unavoidable—in other words, when it is impossible to find people to run them. To avoid those closures, as I announced earlier this morning in a written ministerial statement, we are extending for another two years the payments that we make to rural post offices. That means that, on top of the £450 million that we have put in already, there will be a further £150 million a year for another two years. That is very good news for people living in our villages and countryside.

Anthony D Wright: Two post offices in my constituency closed even though Postwatch objected and supported the campaign against closure. On appeal, the Post Office decided to go ahead with the closures. Does that not show that Postwatch is a toothless tiger? Is it not about time that it was given powers to ensure that it can overrule the Post Office when it has serious objections to a closure?

Patricia Hewitt: I will certainly look at the specific case that my hon. Friend raises, but I stress that in several cases around the country—including my own city, where I was involved as a constituency Member—Postwatch has persuaded and cajoled the Post Office into changing its mind. Postwatch has insisted on post offices staying open, and it is a strong and well-resourced consumer champion. Obviously, I understand my hon. Friend's regret that the post offices were not reprieved in that case, but Postwatch has been responsible for changing the decisions in several cases, and that is exactly how the escalation process is designed to work.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Norfolk several rural sub-post offices—some of them are appealing against closure—set up a new token payment scheme with Powergen? The scheme was very popular with sub-postmasters and the public alike. However, the Post Office has cancelled the contract with Powergen and is stopping sub-postmasters dealing directly with that company to keep the scheme going. Is not that very short-sighted and possibly a restraint of trade? Will she investigate?

Patricia Hewitt: Decisions of that sort are of course a commercial matter for the Post Office, but I will take up with David Mills, the chief executive, the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I hope that he will welcome the announcement that I made this morning of a further £300 million to support rural post offices. We have seen, in Norfolk and other parts of the country, good new arrangements to support postal services. Post offices are opening in pubs and village halls, and we are piloting mobile post offices. All those innovations give us the opportunity, in the longer term, to keep postal services in those villages where they still exist and to extend them to all those thousands of villages that lost their post offices in the Conservative years. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he would cut the £300 million that I am giving to rural post offices? Of course he would.

Clive Efford: I understand that the sub-post offices that are to close have signed a contract to accept a compensation package, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if money is paid over it closes down the option for the local community to campaign to keep the service in its area, perhaps by moving into a supermarket or newsagents, where economies of scale could apply and the cost of running the service overcome? Many of my local communities where post offices will close include elderly people who will find it impossible to travel to another area. The suggested alternative post offices might as well be on the moon for such people. We must provide the option of keeping postal services in local areas.

Patricia Hewitt: We all care about our local post offices and of course they are a lifeline for elderly people in particular. However, we must face the reality that sub-postmasters and mistresses all over the country simply cannot make a living. With the changes to people's lives—the shift to banking, the use of the internet and more people owning a car—post offices have fewer customers. The Post Office, through the urban reinvention network, is providing better post offices. Most customers are transferring to those other post offices, which are bringing new customers in by providing new services. That is the real way in which we will save post offices in future.

EU Neighbourhood Policy

David Cairns: What benefits she expects will accrue to trade relations between Israel and the EU from the new EU neighbourhood policy.

Douglas Alexander: The European neighbourhood policy offers closer co-operation between the EU and Israel in areas of mutual interest, including trade, in return for political and economic reform. We believe that engaging with Israel on the basis of shared common values will be beneficial to the EU-Israel relationship.

David Cairns: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that increased trade between the EU and Israel is vital both economically, for the people of Israel and the Palestinian Authority areas—whose economies are closely intertwined—and politically, because it gives the EU a greater stake in the middle east and, therefore, further legitimises its role as a member of the Quartet? Conversely, however well intentioned calls for sanctions are, they would be damaging politically and economically.

Douglas Alexander: I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in those matters and I concur that reducing our level of commercial contact would not strengthen our influence at a critical point in the middle east process.

Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I am in the process of establishing a new all-party group on conflict management and resolution. Does he agree that the lesson of Northern Ireland is that peace helps to generate trade and industry and that trade and industry help to generate peace? Is not that transferable to a new and enlivened peace process in Israel and Palestine?

Douglas Alexander: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work and wish every success to the organisation that he is in the process of establishing. We can look closer to home than Israel and the Palestinian situation for evidence of the case that he makes. If we consider recent economic progress in Northern Ireland, where record inward investment following the peace process has been self-reinforcing, his point is well made.

Coal Miners' Compensation Scheme

John Mann: How many solicitors have sought remuneration for additional health tests for clients under the coal miners' compensation scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger; and for how many individuals.

Nigel Griffiths: It is not possible to provide a breakdown, but the House will want to know that the Department pays for the independent medical assessment process and there should be no need for claimants to incur further expenditure by undergoing additional health tests.

John Mann: That excellent and precise answer knocks on the head the myth that solicitors perpetuate to justify double-charging miners. Is not it time for miners and their widows to be paid the full 100 per cent. of their compensation? Can the Government help by holding back the cheques for those solicitors who refuse to pay 100 per cent. of the money, in exactly the same way as some solicitors have been holding back cheques for their clients to try to rake off extra money from the most generous scheme in the world?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am sure that 8,823 of his constituents in Bassetlaw are grateful for the help that he has given them in securing payments that total £52 million. We are in discussions with the Law Society and I was grateful to my hon. Friend for attending a meeting with that organisation. I shall ensure that the points he makes are registered with it.

Nigel Evans: Does the Minister accept that we are all disturbed by reports about the way in which some solicitors seem to have had their noses in the trough in the case of the compensation that we are considering? We all want to ensure that as much money as possible goes to those who deserve the compensation. Is it possible to have a review of how the compensation package has been administered and how much money has gone to solicitors so that, in future, we can ensure that, if there are other similar compensation cases, solicitors come at the bottom of the league and the people who deserve the compensation go to the very top?

Nigel Griffiths: I have already put the information that the hon. Gentleman requests in the public domain.

Jeff Ennis: Can my hon. Friend update hon. Members about progress on trying to establish a minimum compensation figure for miners who suffer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema and financing it by using the inflation-updated solicitors' fees that the Department is currently paying out?

Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend made powerful representations in a recent Adjournment debate. He knows that discussions are currently taking place. Mr. Justice Turner is aware of his excellent contribution. Again, I stress that we want to do more to ensure that we build on the £72 million that has been paid out to miners—12,000 of them in my hon. Friend's constituency—and rectify remaining injustices. I undertake to keep him and the House informed of the results of deliberations.

Gas and Electricity Consumer Council

Harold Best: If she will take steps to increase the powers available to the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council for protecting gas and electricity consumers.

Mike O'Brien: The powers of the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council—Energywatch—were set out in the Utilities Act 2000. I have no plans to increase them.

Harold Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is growing anxiety in the public mind, especially in the older section of our community, about energy prices and contracts? Will he give further consideration to the council's powers to be pre-emptive and ensure that people who may be vulnerable to being drawn into contracts that are not in their best interests are protected?

Mike O'Brien: Under the Utilities Act 2000, the aim was to create a regulator with substantial powers and a consumer investigator—essentially, Energywatch. Ofgem obviously has the powers—it is the regulator—and is able to intervene if necessary, but we have found that, in practice, Energywatch can deal with such issues by entering into discussions with the various electricity companies. If such issues need to be addressed, using the energy investigator to engage successfully with the companies would be one way forward, but if problems are arising I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; we very much look forward to working with him. I pay tribute to his predecessor's work, especially the confirmation he gave the Opposition when we discussed the Energy Bill in respect of our proposals about vulnerable customers whose electricity or gas is about to be cut off. Apparently, many of those who would wish to intervene to help them are prevented from doing so by the Data Protection Act 1998. Will the Minister give his urgent attention to ensuring that no vulnerable customer is placed at such risk in future?

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who did a superb job as Energy Minister; I hope that I can begin to fill his shoes in that role.
	The hon. Lady makes a good point. Following extensive work earlier this year, the industry agreed and issued guidelines on disconnections, which will ensure that, as far as possible, no vulnerable customer is disconnected. If there is evidence of wrongful disconnections, Ofgem has the power to act. I understand that, thus far, Energywatch has not provided evidence of that happening widely, but it will continue to watch and monitor the position because, as she rightly points out, this is an important issue.

John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree with the statement made by Allan Asher, the chief executive of Energywatch, that the opaque nature of the wholesale gas market, which is now a European market, is such that the only serious avenue open to protect consumers is an investigation by the European competition authorities or the Competition Commission?

Mike O'Brien: Other avenues are open, including discussions between the various Governments and engagement with private sector companies. However, we can also use routes through the European Union to ensure that the consumer is protected. Obviously, wholesale prices, especially for gas, have been increasing, which partly reflects upward pressure on prices in continental Europe, where gas prices are contractually linked to high oil prices. We are continuing to watch the position very carefully, and we want to ensure that, throughout the process, the consumer is protected in so far as that is possible.

Postal Services

Hugh Bayley: What new services have become available at post office counters since May 1997.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government have given the Royal Mail Group greater commercial freedom. We have put in place new management—including for Post Office Ltd., which has been losing business for years—and the Post Office is introducing a number of new services, particularly in insurance, banking and telephones.

Hugh Bayley: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Post Office provides new services, it will attract more customers and be able to keep more branches open? How many banks have made arrangements with the Post Office whereby their customers can draw cash at post office counters? How many people have accounts with those banks and can therefore draw cash at post offices?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: new services, bringing in new customers, will make our post offices successful in future. Already, some 20 million current account holders with Barclays, Lloyds TSB and Alliance and Leicester can bank electronically at post offices, and I am delighted that that became 21 million banking customers yesterday because Clydesdale bank has now reached the same agreement with the Post Office.

David Heath: That is good news, but customers also want their post offices to be available to them in a convenient place. Has the Secretary of State any comment to make on the continued closure of Crown post offices such as the one in Frome, which has been situated in the marketplace for as long as anyone can remember? It will now be moved and put into the back of a newsagent's somewhere. That is bitterly resented by people in Frome, and there has been no consultation process that is worthy of the name. It was made quite clear right from the beginning that the Post Office would decide and that nobody in Frome would be able to change that decision, whether through petitions in the Somerset Standard or any other way.

Patricia Hewitt: This is a matter for the Post Office, to which, as I have said, we have given commercial freedom. I regret the fact that Crown post offices have been losing so much money in recent years and I regret even more the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would privatise the Post Office, which would undoubtedly make that situation worse.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women was asked—

New Business Initiatives

Claire Curtis-Thomas: If she will make a statement on the initiatives taken by the Government to encourage women (a) to become self-employed and (b) to establish businesses.

Jacqui Smith: Since the launch of our strategic framework for women's enterprise last year, we have been working across government and in the regions to improve the environment of support for women wishing to become self-employed or to start businesses.
	I am pleased to report that all nine English regions are now committed to developing women's enterprise. Enterprise week in November will include a designated women's enterprise day. Women now account for around one third of people going into self-employment, and an increasing number of women are reporting that they have the skills needed to start a business.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and wish to make her aware that I have a marvellous community cinema in my community, which a group of enterprising women took over seven years ago. It has a turnover of nearly a third of a million pounds a year while making only £500 profit. Those women desperately want to expand this facility and they desperately need support to do so. Is she convinced that the mechanisms that she has now put in place will reach these wonderful women so that they can go on working in voluntary enterprise and make more of a contribution than they have already?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is obviously talking about a group of very inspirational women, who have taken on the challenge not only of enterprise but of building their community as well. She is absolutely right. We need to look at all the forms of support that are in place and make sure that they take into consideration the specific needs of women. That is why, for example, we shall shortly launch the case for women's enterprise, which offers practical guidance, case studies and advice for those people who offer business support on the particular needs of women. That is why, in the situation that she has described, the increased support that the Government have put in place for social enterprise may also be appropriate for these women. I am clear that not only is it beneficial for individual women in the circumstances that she has outlined to set up in business, but it is extremely beneficial for their communities as well.

Owen Paterson: How many new businesses were established last year by women?

Jacqui Smith: I do not know the answer to that, but I will certainly provide the hon. Gentleman with the information later. It is encouraging that research shows that many more women now feel they have the skills and ability to set up in business. We now need to translate that into women who actually do that, and I have already outlined some of the practical measures that are being taken at a national level and through the regional development agencies, which are beginning to set women's enterprise as a priority and to put in place the actions that will translate those women who want to start in business into women who are successfully in business.

Meg Munn: In Sheffield, there is an active business club that has many women members who have set up their own businesses and who are doing very well. Will my right hon. Friend look at ways in which Government organisations can make better links with such organisations to use these women as examples and inspirations to other women?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Interestingly, a research report by the British Chambers of Commerce found that female businesses tended to be more innovative and more collaborative and networked particularly with universities, as well as being increasingly export oriented.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to find mentors for women who are setting up in work. The business volunteer mentoring initiative, which currently provides free mentoring support to pre and early start-up businesses, has some 43,000 clients, approximately 40 per cent. of whom are female. Although women do not form the majority of those who use the service, a higher proportion of women who set up in business use it than men. My hon. Friend makes an important point on which we need to build.

Unfair Dismissal

Vincent Cable: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of legislation protecting women from unfair dismissal in cases of maternity leave.

Patricia Hewitt: In 2003–04, employment tribunals received 694 applications from women who believed that they were dismissed because of pregnancy, maternity and childbirth, and 80 relating to being prevented from returning to work after maternity leave. The law makes it quite clear that women cannot be discriminated against or dismissed because of pregnancy or childbirth, and I regret the fact that some employers still seem to be flouting the law.

Vincent Cable: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the law is secure, especially in the light of the precedent created recently in the case of Manor Bakeries and Mrs. Ursell in my constituency? The tribunal ruled that a woman could be sacked in a case of maternity leave, even if she had an exemplary record and references, provided that the decision was made on commercial grounds.

Patricia Hewitt: I am not aware of the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I invite him to send me further details of it. I believe that the law is clear on dismissal and discrimination. Employment tribunal cases do not set legal precedents and I do not know whether that specific decision is being appealed. We have invited the Equal Opportunities Commission to consider the real problem of employers who still do not accept the need to recognise that women will have children—that is a very good thing too. The commission will report to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality and me shortly, so we shall consider carefully its recommendations for any further action that might be needed.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pregnancy discrimination is still widespread? Has she heard of the case of the Cardiff manager who was advised by her boss to have an abortion or face the sack? Does she agree that the law should be made clearer and codified, as recommended by the Equal Opportunities Commission?

Patricia Hewitt: I am indeed aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. It was absolutely disgraceful and hugely distressing to the woman and her family. As my hon. Friend indicated, the Equal Opportunities Commission has already produced an interim report and is recommending even clearer advice to employees and employers on their rights and responsibilities. We will consider that in the context of its final report on its investigation.

Sandra Gidley: In July this year, Godfrey Bloom MEP said:
	"No self-respecting businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a woman of childbearing age."
	It is relatively easy to see when a woman is discriminated against because she is pregnant, but less easy to see when she is discriminated against because she is of childbearing age. What is the Minister doing to tackle that problem?

Patricia Hewitt: The remarks made by that UKIP Member were absolutely absurd. A growing number of women of all ages are entering the labour market and getting employment because employers need their skills and talents. It is simply not in the interest of any well-run business to discriminate against a woman because she is of childbearing age or has a baby. We must keep pressing that point to the minority of employers who have still not moved into the 21st century.

Pension Inequality

Sally Keeble: What steps she is taking to tackle pension inequality for women.

Jacqui Smith: We have introduced a raft of measures to help women in retirement and women of working age to build better pensions. Almost all the 2.5 million carers who have benefited from the state second pension are women, two thirds of those receiving pension credit are women, and the introduction of, and increase to, the national minimum wage disproportionately benefits women. We have also launched a publication on informed choices for working and savings, which will help to improve women's awareness of their financial position.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome the measures that my hon. Friend outlines. Does she agree, however, that the real way to crack the pensions problem for women is to ensure that they have their own independent pension entitlement? Will she look, therefore, at ensuring that women who work all their working lives—perhaps only part time or with a career break to bring up a family—have better rights than they do now to their own independent state pension?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the position of women who have, perhaps, taken career breaks and have had caring responsibilities. That is, of course, why the state second pension, which provides benefits to women who are carers and not in paid employment, is so important. It is also why the extension of home responsibility protection, which the Government have already put in place, is crucial. As we make clear in the pensions Green Paper, the particular position of women with respect to pensions both deserves and is getting attention from the Government, as my hon. Friend says.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate what the Minister says and that she is taking action for the future, but my concern is for the many thousands of women of pensionable age who did not have the opportunities during their working lives that our generation have had, with the effect that one in four women pensioners are living in poverty now. The measures in place are not helping. Only 12 per cent. of women, as opposed to 90 per cent. of men, are eligible for the full basic state pension now. It is a really sad situation for hundreds of thousands of women over 60 right now. What is the Minister going to do about it—now?

Jacqui Smith: I certainly share the hon. Lady's concern about those pensioners, very many of them women, who are living in poverty. I am slightly surprised at the emphasis that she places on it, however, not least because the action that this Government have taken to focus support on the poorest pensioners—whether or not it is through the minimum income guarantee, other improvements to pension provision, such as the introduction of the pension credit, free TV licences or a whole range of other provisions that the Government have made—has almost invariably been opposed by Opposition Members. We have made real our commitment to ensuring that those pensioners in poverty are our priority. I hope that the hon. Lady makes real her commitment in future and does not institute the sort of cuts that have been her party's policy up until now.

Business of the House

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the shadow Leader of the House to ask the business question, I want to make it clear that I do not intend to allow this question and answer session to be used for a discussion of yesterday's security incident. The serious questions arising from that incident will be discussed by the Joint Committee on Security and the House of Commons Commission when the House returns. Any Member who wishes to contribute to that discussion is welcome to speak to the Chairman of the Joint Committee, the Government deputy Chief Whip, or to write to me, but I do not want questions of security to be discussed publicly on the Floor of the House today, and certainly not on an occasion when we are supposed to be concerned with the House's future business.

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for after the conference break?

Peter Hain: The business for the week following the conference recess will be as follows:
	Monday 11 October—Second Reading of the Mental Capacity Bill.
	Tuesday 12 October—Second Reading of the Civil Partnership Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 13 October—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 14 October—Motion to take note of a European document relating to justice and home affairs work programme, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Horserace, Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill, followed by a debate on school sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 15 October—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 18 October—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 19 October—Remaining stages of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 20 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill.
	Thursday 21 October—A debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 22 October—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 21 October will be a debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on social cohesion.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business, especially the defence debate for which we have been calling.
	The Leader of the House will recall that at the beginning of July I raised with him concerns about the large number of late amendments being tabled by the Government at each stage of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. Will he give an assurance that a further raft of substantial Government amendments will not be tabled during the recess, giving hon. Members precious little time to prepare for Report?
	I understand that Adair Turner's interim report on pensions is expected in the first week back. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is an oral statement and a full debate on that important topic?
	The Leader of the House knows that the current law on gambling has disadvantages for charities. The draft Gambling Bill has been scrutinised by a Joint Committee. Is he able to tell us when the Government expect to present the full Bill to Parliament?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the draft Regional Assemblies Bill before the ballot papers go out for the north-east referendum? Clearly, we should debate the details in order to inform the vote.
	The Leader of the House will be aware of Mr. Speaker's concern about health and safety in the Palace and that many hon. Members are concerned about the House sitting at a time when major building works are under way. Has he had any advice on that aspect and is he able to comment on the implications for September sittings? While covering that ground, he might like to comment on whether he has made any progress on putting the Sessional Orders on to a statutory basis.

Peter Hain: If I may, I shall answer the last point first as it deals with an important House matter. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. Walking around, I have been concerned about the health and security implications of our being in session and the House sitting while serious building work is being undertaken. That work is a matter for the House authorities, not for me. There are serious questions to be addressed and consultation will be required.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is part of the process, we are in the final stages of a review of the sitting times of the House. September sittings will clearly be part of the decision on sitting times that the House will be invited to take early in the new year. I have had plenty of representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House that September sittings are not acceptable, especially in the present conditions. I have been advised by the House authorities that, so that important security work in the Chamber can be undertaken, next year's September sitting cannot take place. That will form part of the background to the decision that we as a House eventually reach in the context of a broader review of sitting hours.
	The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is expected to return to the House next month. Obviously, I regret late Government amendments, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that they were largely technical. He will also understand how important it is to get this vital Bill absolutely right, given the number of deaths that occur: about 20 per cent. of all violent crime is committed in the home against women, and two women a week die as a result of violent crime. In addition, we have been responding to some of the suggestions made by his Back-Bench and Front-Bench colleagues.
	I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's point on Adair Turner's pensions report. As for the Gambling Bill, I hope to be able to inform the House early next month about progress on the Bill. Pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee has been valuable, and there is broad support for the Bill across the House.
	On the Regional Assemblies Bill, I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate before the ballot. He will know that the issue has been widely discussed over the past 18 months or so. We had earlier authority for the referendum, and that is the basis on which we shall go ahead. He can always travel up to the north-east and join the campaign. No doubt he will campaign on behalf of the Conservative party against regional government for the north-east of England—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Just as that party campaigned against devolution in Wales, so they do not want to support the devolution of power to the regions of England, and the people in the regions understand that.

Paul Tyler: My colleagues and I share concern about the fate of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Bill. However, I believe that the Leader of the House made a slip of the tongue when he said that it would come back to the House later this month—that might be difficult. I hope that he accepts that the Conservatives have not tabled any amendments so far, which may be significant.
	I hope that the Leader of the House can give an undertaking that we will have an early statement from the Law Officers as soon as we return giving full details of the Attorney-General's assessment of the legality of the invasion of Iraq. He will be aware that this morning the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, made it clear that in his view the invasion of Iraq by US and UK troops was illegal. The House must be told whether the legal justification on which it made a decision on 18 March last year was, or was not, misleading.
	May we have an early statement, before the debate in October on defence matters, about the extremely important report by the Public Accounts Committee on the failures of equipment in Iraq, which offers devastating corroboration of the fact that failures by the Ministry of Defence led to unnecessary deaths of British troops, including Sergeant Steven Roberts from Wadebridge in north Cornwall? The Leader of the House will recall that I have raised that issue on a number of occasions, and it is now quite clear from the pathologist's report as well as from the Select Committee report that the Ministry must have on its conscience the death not only of Sergeant Roberts but of others. It is outrageous that this very week troops in his unit are threatened with court martial, when the Secretary of State for Defence should take responsibility. Our armed forces were sent into an illegal war with inadequate equipment, which is surely a matter of serious concern for the House.

Peter Hain: I quite clearly recall saying that the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Bill would return to the House later "next month", so I hope that that satisfied any need for clarification.
	On the question of Iraq, the hon. Gentleman gave a selective interpretation of what the UN Secretary-General said. He made his position clear, but from the outset the advice of the Attorney-General to the Government made it clear that authority to use force against Iraq derived from the combined effect of UN resolutions 678, 687 and 1441, all of which were adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the PAC report, which is important and certainly pointed out shortcomings. In an expedition fraught with danger and which required a rapid deployment, our forces were praised internationally for the excellence of their operation, but it was inevitable that there would be shortcomings, some of which have been reported. However, the report clearly says that the Ministry of Defence
	"deployed a large, highly capable force to the Gulf in around 10 weeks, less than half the time it had taken to send a broadly similar sized force for the 1990–91 Gulf War."
	I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pick one or two shortcomings that need to be remedied and paint a wholly critical picture that is not justified by the report.
	The death of Sergeant Roberts is, of course, a terrible tragedy. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised it, but I question the tone in which he did so. Whose side is he on in the battle in Iraq? Is he on the side of creating a democratic Iraq in which its people can take control of their lives for the very first time for at least a generation, or does he want to carp and criticise, playing into the hands of the terrorists who are seeking to undermine our forces there?

Peter Kilfoyle: Notwithstanding the advice that you gave, Mr. Speaker, on the future provision for consideration of yesterday's events, my understanding is that professional advice is being sought now. Would it be in order to ask the Leader of the House to confirm that? In addition, can he explain the remit of what is happening now?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling on this matter.

Dennis Skinner: Everybody can talk about it except MPs? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Chris Grayling: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his recent comments in The Observer, in which he said that he thought that there was unnecessary interference in, for example, dietary and food supplements and herbal remedies. He said that everybody understands that they must be safe, but that Brussels has dealt with the matter in a particularly bureaucratic and heavy-handed fashion. Is that the Government's view as well as his, and if so, will he make time available on the Floor of the House for us to debate these issues and to identify how to resolve an extremely unfortunate and undesirable situation?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the usual way, and I would certainly encourage him to do so. If what he is saying is that he shares my view that the 20 million people who now rely on dietary supplements, including vitamins and minerals, to improve their health and lifestyle should be able to continue to do so, I absolutely agree, and any of the new regulations introduced by the European Union should not stand in the way.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: If the House of Commons is to be limited in the things that it can discuss, may I ask the Leader of the House to undertake an urgent investigation into the cost of the past two weeks? Will he make public before the House takes decisions exactly how much the recall has cost and what delay there has been to contracts? When he says that this is not a matter for the Government, may I remind him that the House authorities have to maintain this building during the time when the House is in recess? It is very much a matter for the Government and the House of Commons to consider when we are recalled the cost and implications and, if I may say so, the effect on other matters that are at hand.

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that this is a House matter. In saying that it was a Government matter, I assume that she meant that, ultimately, the expenditure for the House is voted from the Treasury's funds. I shall certainly discuss this matter with the House authorities, and ask them to provide information on the cost of recalling the House in September. All that information will be available for her and other hon. Members when we reach a decision. I have an open mind on this matter, which is a matter for the House, and we should take that decision bearing in mind the experience that we have had in the past two years of September sittings.

Patrick Cormack: The Leader of the House did not answer the question on Sessional Orders asked by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. Does the Leader of the House agree that Parliament square has been dirty and defaced for far too long, and that it would be sensible, particularly in the light of yesterday's events, to have a look at the Sessional Orders with a view to legislating at an early date?

Peter Hain: I hope to come back to the House on this matter fairly soon after we return. I am well aware that it has been dragging on for far too long, and the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have pressed me very closely on it. I am also conscious that the Procedure Committee's report on Sessional Orders has not yet been debated, and it will be debated soon after we return.
	As I have already announced to the House, the Home Office is currently consulting on the central issue of what powers the authorities need for Parliament square. That consultation will end on Friday 8 October. I think that it would be only right to reflect on the outcome of the consultation. Once considered views have been expressed, we will be in a position to report back to the House. As the Procedure Committee report outlined, the Government do not have responsibility for Parliament square. Responsibility for the square rests with a number of authorities: Westminster city council, the Mayor of London and the Highways Agency. Clearly, the situation that occurred yesterday is not acceptable. The right to protest must be preserved, but access to the Palace of Westminster must be guaranteed and security around it must be preserved, and we need to balance those principles.

Meg Munn: May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill returns to the House shortly? It is an enormously important measure, the first on domestic violence for more than 30 years, and many of its remedies are urgently needed. Will he please ensure that we are able to complete this business as soon as possible?

Peter Hain: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, in the spirit in which she said it. It is a vital measure, for the reasons that I described earlier, and I hope to have good news as soon as possible after the House returns. Clearly, the Government are anxious to get the Bill on to the statute book, providing protection for women in particular who have had such a dreadful time for far too long.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the relatively positive answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) in respect of the Procedure Committee's report on Sessional Orders and resolutions, which I am sure—I hope that I am in order in saying this—could have had a bearing, had it been dealt with already, on what unfortunately occurred in Parliament square yesterday. Having said that, will the Leader of the House give a firm commitment that the Government will make proper proposals when this matter is debated, so that what I saw as the horrific, excessive action of the police yesterday, against generally law-abiding citizens seeking to protest peacefully in Parliament square, does not occur again? Our report can put that right.

Peter Hain: I can, as I already have done, give a firm commitment that proposals will come forward. On the general principle that the hon. Gentleman expressed, if those protesters had been miners 20 years ago, I bet that he would not have been saying what he has just said.

Terry Rooney: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the sterling work done by the magistracy up and down the country in delivering the justice system. May we have an early debate on the selection procedure, however, as it is imperative that we maintain impartiality and non-discrimination? We have discovered that one of the magistrates in Bradford, William Stanley, is a member of the British National party.

Peter Hain: Clearly, my hon. Friend has drawn a worrying episode to the House's attention. I do not think that members of the British National party are fit to stand in any public position, as their racism and neo-Nazism makes them unfit for office. This issue, however, is a matter for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, and he will have noted my hon. Friend's point.

George Young: Reverting to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friends, the report of the Procedure Committee was published on 5 November last year. Since that time, a number of my hon. Friends and I have been pressing for a debate. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that not only will we discuss the matter but that it will be possible for the House to come to a conclusion on the Sessional Orders, so that they can be implemented at the beginning of the next Session at the end of November?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman has quite properly pressed me on this issue repeatedly—there is no question but that there has been too long a delay. It is a complex issue, however. It is not just a question of Sessional Orders but of what Home Office legislation might be required. I have explained that the Home Secretary is consulting on that and is keen to act; indeed, I discussed it with him this morning. There is also the wider question of the environment of the Palace of Westminster—the wider Government and Whitehall environment, with its security implications, and the implications for the House—although the security of the House and the Palace is imperative in its own right. That is why we have not rushed into this, but yesterday's events underline the importance of resolving it.

John Smith: In the light of the statement made within the hour by the Ministry of Defence to end the major repair and overhaul of the RAF's front-line fleet in south Wales after 50 years, will he find time for an emergency debate on the implications of this decision? Giving this kind of work back to the Royal Air Force is wrong in principle and practice. It makes a mockery of the Government's smart procurement policy. It is bad for the military, bad for the British taxpayer, and it will devastate the south Wales economy.

Peter Hain: I cannot accept that it will devastate the south Wales economy, for reasons that I am about to explain. I take to heart, however, the way in which my hon. Friend has championed, as its local Member of Parliament, the future of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency at St. Athan. He has fought harder than anyone else could have fought for it, and I believe that it still has a future, as do Defence Ministers. It will be an opportunity to attract further investment to Wales. Wales, particularly that part of south-east Wales, has a fantastic environment for defence-related industries. High-quality companies are there, including Cogent, OshKosh, General Dynamics and Axiom, and the MOD directly employs some 5,500 service and civilian personnel in Wales. We are very concerned about this matter, and Ministers will understand his point.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a short debate or a statement to allow the Government to explain why they continue to block the award of medals by the Russian Government to UK seamen who served in the Russian convoys during the second world war? Those men risked their lives. They are regarded in ports such as Murmansk, to this day, as heroes. There is no appropriate British decoration, which is bad enough, but the fact that the Government continue to block the award of a Russian decoration is unforgivable.

Peter Hain: I understand the passion with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. Any servicemen who perform heroic roles need recognition, and I shall make sure that the Secretary of State takes careful note of his representation.

Angela Eagle: You, Mr. Speaker, made a ruling at the beginning of today that understandably makes it difficult for us to discuss what went on yesterday. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has any idea when, after all the reviews have concluded, we shall sensibly have a public debate on how to move forward. We had a debate when the screen was installed, and clearly, there are worries about being too open in relation to sensitive areas. We must have some mechanism, however, by which Members of the House, who have been directly affected, can have a say and debate these issues sensibly.

Peter Hain: Clearly, I am aware of your rulings on this matter, Mr. Speaker, which I support. Equally, however, my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House will wish to express their views, which you have invited over the coming weeks. We must reflect on that, but I assure my hon. Friend that the House of Commons Commission, under your chairmanship, has already had an interim report from the security services and the Metropolitan police. We expect the final report within a matter of weeks, which will take into account what happened yesterday. There is urgent need for reform, of which you, Mr. Speaker, being responsible for security, are very conscious, as we all are, and as I am of all the views expressed to me overnight.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not on the importance of the correct work-life balance, which might be rather unconvincing, but on why a split is necessary between the roles of Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? How is it that the excellent Lord Tebbit managed to hold that position when he was chairman of the Conservative party, with an electoral role, and was paid only about £2,000 a year, because of the minimal nature of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's duties, while this Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be paid at the full Cabinet Minister's rate?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the last Conservative Government, some Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster, such as Lord Hunt, were paid the full Cabinet salary, because they were not party chairmen. The Labour party chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is being paid by the Labour party, because his duties are political in respect of his party post, whereas the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), will be paid a salary from the public purse because he will have a cross-Government role in the co-ordination of Government policy.   
	My right hon. Friend will be responsible for the work of the strategy unit and the policy directorate, and will sit on a number of Cabinet Committees. An announcement about that will be made to Parliament in the normal way. He will also be responsible for Duchy business.
	In response to a point raised with me last time, let me add that my right hon. Friend will answer parliamentary questions on his Government responsibilities in the House, and will deal with correspondence from Members on those issues in the usual way.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Leader of the House help me with a very serious problem involving parliamentary accountability? On 10 June the Foreign Secretary tabled two Orders in Council, which Her Majesty signed, denying the Chagos islanders the right to return to Diego Garcia or any other islands, and handing over control of those islands to a commissioner. I understand that the Orders in Council cannot be debated in the House. I have tabled an early-day motion asking for a debate.
	Does the Leader of the House not think that in the 21st century it is outrageous that the Head of State can sign an order denying rights granted by a British court to British citizens? Apparently there is no parliamentary accountability whatever for that decision. Will the Leader of the House kindly ensure that the Foreign Secretary tables a motion seeking approval for the orders, so that many of us can simply vote against them?

Peter Hain: The Foreign Secretary and I are aware of my hon. Friend's long championing of the islanders' cause, and the Foreign Secretary will take careful note of his argument.

Desmond Swayne: May we have a debate on the distribution of the resources that have been made available for closed-circuit television? In New Milton we are desperate for CCTV to combat thuggery and antisocial behaviour. It is now becoming a matter of urgency: we are given to understand that if we do not have CCTV in the next 15 months, we shall find that instead of cameras being available in Station road they will all have been installed in the forest to catch new offenders against the crime of hunting.

Peter Hain: I assume from what the hon. Gentleman has said about CCTV and other extra security protection for local communities, including the one to which he referred, that he will be backing the Government's spending programmes for the Home Office budget rather than the big cuts in law and order that the Conservatives are planning for their first two years in government—if they are elected. That will mean cutting programmes such as the one that we are determined to implement to give local communities proper protection. The hon. Gentleman should support the Government's policies, not the Opposition's.

David Chaytor: In the next few days, two British ships will arrive in Charleston, South Carolina to collect a shipment of 140 kg of weapons-grade plutonium. The plutonium, stripped out of American nuclear weapons, will then be transported back across the Atlantic to Cherbourg in northern France. Does my right hon. Friend think that, in the post-9/11 world, it makes any sense at all for a British company wholly owned by the state to engage in the new international trade in weapons-grade plutonium? May we have a debate on the environmental and security implications of that trade?

Peter Hain: Again, the Foreign Secretary will want to take careful note of that salutary point. Of course, someone has to dispose of the waste: it is one of the consequences of that particular form of energy. People might bear that in mind when thinking about Britain's future energy needs and requirements. Clearly expertise lies in Britain—that is why this is happening—but the issues raised by my hon. Friend will have been carefully noted, and I am sure there will be responses.

John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on Darfur, western Sudan? Given that aerial bombing, mass shooting, widespread rape, burnings alive, destruction of crops, theft of livestock and poisoning of water supplies are all part of the cocktail of barbarity that has stunned the world, and given that the Prime Minister rightly told the Labour party conference in 2001 that if ever there was a threat of a repetition of Rwanda Britain would have a moral duty to act, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is essential for us, in this House of Commons, to have an early debate on how the international community can hold the Government of Sudan to account for despicable crimes against humanity, how we can ensure access for humanitarian aid, how we can protect the camps, and how we can safeguard people who are threatened with one of the worst genocides in the history of the world?

Peter Hain: I strongly agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments. He has worked very hard on this issue over the last year or so. He is absolutely right: the crimes against humanity are despicable, and there needs to be an accounting for them. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his Front-Bench post to go on arguing the case so eloquently.
	How are we to resolve such a complicated issue? The Foreign Secretary is seeking further United Nations authority to make more progress in getting the Sudanese Government to comply precisely because we need that Government's co-operation, and we need to support the African Union's work in achieving an end to the conflict and devastation of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken so eloquently. We are agreed on the whole approach; it is just a question of how to lever in the resources that are needed to change the situation on the ground.

David Winnick: I shall not make any comment about the ongoing security situation. I was not intending to do so until an investigation has taken place. I would not want to fall foul of you, Mr. Speaker.
	Does my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that from the very beginning of Parliament, parliamentarians have insisted that we should be able to conduct our debates without any fear of intimidation or harassment from outside? To a large extent, that is now the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy. What happened yesterday, the hooliganism and the thuggery, must never be repeated.

Peter Hain: That was a very interesting question, given the circumscribed nature of these business questions. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. It would be absolutely unacceptable for anything like what happened yesterday ever to happen again: that is why you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House   of Commons Commission—including me—are determined to implement the proper reforms to ensure that it does not happen again.
	May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Doorkeepers? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] They had difficulty in coping with the situation, but the failure was not theirs; the failure lay in a more general security breakdown in the Palace.
	While I am about it, may I draw attention to what I understand is the last day in the House of the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, whose wife is sitting behind him? I hope that they enjoy a fruitful and happy retirement.

Eric Forth: In a typical "Not me, guv" reply a short time ago, the Leader of the House managed to refer in the abstract to "the House authorities", as if they were somehow detached from him. As a House authority and as a member of the House of Commons Commission, which makes all the key decisions on matters relating to the House, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an absolute undertaking that if the Commission were to present radical proposals of any kind to make any change to our organisation, or the relationship between the House and the public, they would be properly and fully considered by Members rather than decisions being made in secret, behind closed doors, and foisted on us before we knew what was happening?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I shall certainly bear it in mind as Leader of the House of Commons, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we will all bear it in mind in our role as members of the Commission.
	There is no doubt that there is urgent need for reform of the House in terms of security and management. That is something in which I strongly believe. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will support whatever recommendations come from the Commission in due course; and we will bear in mind his request.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had better intervene at this point, and say that the House will make the ultimate decision on any reform or change.

Nick Palmer: I wish explicitly to support the call issued by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on Darfur. However, I rise to ask whether we can have an early debate on the proposed extension of the Nottingham light rail system. I have numerous constituents on both sides of the argument, but everyone is fed up with the delays in the making of funding decisions. The uncertainty is causing blight for home owners, and making it difficult for businesses in my constituency to plan for the future. We need a decision one way or the other.

Peter Hain: The Government are strongly committed to the policy on light rail. We will need to make a decision on that matter. The strong argument that my hon. Friend has advanced in respect of Nottingham will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Simon Thomas: May I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that, when the cross-party motion to impeach the Prime Minister on high queens—[Interruption.] On high crimes and misdemeanours is prepared and laid before the House, there will be time to debate that motion in the proper manner? We heard yesterday that it was fine to use a 90-year-old Act to force through the Hunting Bill. Therefore, it is fine to use ancient procedures in the House properly to hold the Prime Minister to account. Now that Kofi Annan's announcement has stripped away the last fig leaf hiding the Leader of the House's embarrassment over this illegal war, surely it is right that Back Benchers should have a chance to hold the Prime Minister to account.

Peter Hain: Back Benchers have the chance to hold the Prime Minister to account every week at Prime Minister's questions and during statements, which he frequently makes on all sorts of issues. As I explained—I assume that the hon. Gentleman was not present last week—the House authorities, the Clerk himself and others have made it absolutely clear that the impeachment process lapsed a long time ago. Plaid Cymru should concentrate on supporting the effort to rebuild Iraq and the creation of a democratic Iraq, instead of resorting to gimmicky proposals that have no relevance to the current situation.

Harry Barnes: There is a great deal of disturbing news coming out of Iraq day by day, but there are signs of hope, too, none more so than the development of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, the Iraqi TUC. As this matter will be discussed this week at the TUC conference and, I hope, at the Labour party conference, would it not be valuable to discuss it when we return? It is possible for us to agree on certain developments that should take place because those are not matters that divide people, unlike impeachment, inquests about the war or questions of illegality. Let us get together and assist what is taking place in Iraq towards democratisation.

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, including his support for a strong Iraqi trade union movement. Indeed, I understand that Iraqi trade union representatives are at the TUC conference in Brighton this week. Democratisation of Iraq is a vital priority and my hon. Friend is right that the focus should be on establishing that. The Government are working hard to achieve a democratic Iraq, with trade union rights.

John Greenway: I thank the Leader of the House for what he said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the draft Gambling Bill. We have put a lot of work into it and I hope that we will have a Second Reading debate soon.
	May I plead with the Leader of the House, given the length of the overspill, to find Government time for a debate on agriculture—it is a long time since we have had one on the Floor of the House—so that we can reflect on what for many has been a disastrous harvest, and on the implementation of the single farm payments under the common agricultural policy reforms?

Peter Hain: I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request in respect of agriculture. Although my own constituency has limited farming, I am well aware of the devastating impact of the weather on the harvest during August. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is well aware of that, too, and will want to note carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

John McDonnell: This morning, the Department for Work and Pensions issued a written statement announcing the start of its process of sacking 30,000 employees. In the statement, it announced that 37 benefit offices, three contact centres and two Employer Direct sites will close. Therefore, by Christmas, thousands of workers who currently administer unemployment benefits will be drawing unemployment benefits themselves. That affects virtually every constituency in the country. May I suggest that it would have been better had that information been given via an oral statement to the House, so that we could have at least asked questions? May we have an assurance that there will be a debate on the matter when we return in a few weeks?

Peter Hain: I accept that my hon. Friend has raised the matter properly with me. Obviously, he will have a chance to press the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at questions and to apply for a debate, but the policy that the Government have announced has been discussed on the Floor of the House and reported to the House repeatedly, certainly since the Budget, and all the details of those changes have been fully explained.

David Heath: Is there a possibility of a debate on the Environment Agency? I strongly support its work, but I fear that the resources and personnel are not available for it to do the tasks that we set it. My problem relates to a pollution incident in Somerton in my constituency. The agency admits that it failed in the initial licensing and in the monitoring, and it is now failing to meet the commitments that it has entered into with local people, with Somerton town council and with me to keep us informed of progress because it does not answer letters. I fear that there is a problem within the agency. Will we have an opportunity to discuss it at an early date?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will be able to table questions to the Secretary of State on that matter and on the wider role of the Environment Agency fairly shortly after we return in October. No doubt he will take the opportunity to do so.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend find time to assist me with the difficult problem that I have in relation to the port of Liverpool police and the transport police? The problem arises simply because these officers, who are notably police officers, cannot go to the police authority when they have employment-related difficulties. Any appeals that I have made so far to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office on the matter have been rebutted. That splendid group of individuals are left in no-man's-land when it comes to their employment situation. That is unacceptable.

Peter Hain: By a happy coincidence, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), is sitting on the Front Bench and heard my hon. Friend's elegant plea and cogent argument. I am sure that he will take close notice of it and that she will have the opportunity to press him and other Ministers further if she does not get satisfaction.

Nigel Evans: I am delighted to hear that the Leader of the House backs peaceful demonstrations in Parliament square, as they are an important part of our democratic system, and he is a veteran of some peaceful protests himself, but in respect of ensuring the safety of people who come on demonstrations—the vast majority of people who come are peaceful—sadly, there are always some rotten apples, as we saw yesterday. Could new technology and closed-circuit television be used to assist the police in pinpointing the troublemakers, so that even after the demonstration they can be prosecuted and properly convicted? I understand that the independent Police Complaints Authority will look into any allegations of police abuse that may have occurred yesterday. Those same cameras may help—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Challen.

Colin Challen: Whatever the arguments about the legality of the war in Iraq, and clearly there are serious arguments—the Secretary-General believes that it was illegal—I believe that the joint United States-United Kingdom resolution that was unanimously supported in June in the Security Council legalises the current position. In an early draft of that, it spoke of affirming the importance of the principle of the rule of law, and perhaps that statement should have remained in the final resolution. However, in the light of these debates, may we have a Government statement on what their doctrine is on pre-emptive action, either military or legal, in respect of this kind of conflict?

Peter Hain: I know that the Foreign Secretary will pay careful attention to my hon. Friend's question. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the Foreign Secretary made a speech on that matter relatively recently, addressing the difficulties of intervention, when it can be justified and when not. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to read that speech and perhaps question the Foreign Secretary on it when he gets a chance.

Hugo Swire: Following the proper request of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for a debate on agriculture in the light of the disastrous summer and harvest, may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate specifically on the future of our dairy farmers, the inadequate farm-gate price of milk, and the relationship between our nation's food producers and the supermarket chains?

Peter Hain: I understand that a report has been published on this matter, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among dairy farmers about the question of supermarkets taking their produce at a decent price. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is very aware of this issue and she will want to pay close attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Alan Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the working of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 with particular reference to the Braithwaite report, which, as he knows, was commissioned under the terms of that Act?

Peter Hain: I would be very happy for that matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend raises an important issue that we need to consider, and if he wants to put a relevant question or to have an Adjournment debate on it, he is free to apply in the normal way, and to wait to see whether his application emerges from the shuffle. For my part, I hope that it does.

Bob Spink: Can the Leader of the House kindly help me by finding time for a debate on the operation of the c2c Fenchurch Street line? The overcrowding on the trains on that line is already totally unacceptable, yet trains are to be removed, which will exacerbate the problem and cause reliability and safety problems, as the excellent Yellow Advertiser campaign is pointing out locally.

Peter Hain: I am not aware of the details—and the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I should be—but the Secretary of State for Transport will want to pay close attention to the worrying picture that he has painted.

Stephen McCabe: I am not referring to security matters within the House, Mr. Speaker, but given the disgraceful scenes that we witnessed yesterday and the diversion of so many police officers from their proper duties, does my right hon. Friend think it time that we had a debate on what constitutes legal, peaceful protest in this country? Does he share my revulsion at yesterday's acts of violent thuggery, and does he agree that the time has come to impose exemplary sentences on those involved, and to consider imposing financial penalties on the organisations responsible for creating such chaos and disorder?

Peter Hain: The fact that there was such chaos and disorder is, I know, a matter of great concern to you, Mr. Speaker, and like my hon. Friend I share that concern. It is not for me to comment on how any prosecution should be pursued or the sentencing that might result, but it is imperative to point out that, while the right to peaceful protest should be upheld, the scenes outside the Palace yesterday were totally unacceptable, regardless of who was protesting and whether or not a minority in the demonstration was responsible. In that regard, my hon. Friend's point is well taken.

Owen Paterson: The Deputy Prime Minister is proving to be a public menace in my constituency. In the spring, unknown officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister arbitrarily overruled his own inspector and cancelled a very popular development in Ellesmere. Last night, more than 500 people piled into a hall in Wem to protest about the closure of Wem and Ellesmere swimming pools, which, again, was due to pressure exerted by Deputy Prime Minister's officials on the local council. Can the Deputy Prime Minister come to the Dispatch Box and explain his policy on the provision of popular leisure facilities in rural areas?

Peter Hain: The Deputy Prime Minister and his officials will have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, but he should recognise that the ODPM has invested huge sums into community regeneration, both urban and rural. Indeed, the latter is backed by the policies and resources of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. So the idea that the Deputy Prime Minister is somehow turning his back on the hon. Gentleman's community or any other is a palpable falsehood. He is driving home programmes that are regenerating our communities, but which would be cut by a Conservative Government. Indeed, the Conservatives plan to make budget cuts of £18 billion in their first two years in office, should they be elected.

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on early-day motion 1650?
	[That this House notes the campaign being mounted by the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance highlighting the plight of widows and widowers of civil servants who are members of the pre-October 2002 Civil Service Pension Scheme; is concerned that if surviving spouses of these civil servants decide to remarry or cohabit, they automatically lose all rights to their widows' pension; further notes that the recently improved Civil Service Pension Scheme, introduced in October 2002, has removed this condition; recognises that this creates a two-tier system that unfairly excludes widows and widowers from being offered the financial protection now deemed adequate by the new Civil Service Pension Scheme; and calls upon the Government to change the regulations governing this aspect of civil service pensions in order to grant spouses of all civil servants a pension for life.]
	The early-day motion, which stands in my name but is signed by Members of all three major parties in the House, draws attention to the unacceptable position of widows and widowers of civil servants who were members of the pre-October 2002 civil service pension scheme. Indeed, widows and widowers of police officers are in the same position, in that they have their pension removed if they re-marry or cohabit. It is perfectly obvious when someone re-marries, but in the end, cohabiting can be proved only through snooping and spying, which is completely unacceptable and should not form part of modern pension arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate, so that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions can explain why the situation should not be changed? In my view, it should be changed.

Peter Hain: I understand that questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will take place soon after we return from the forthcoming break—perhaps as soon as the day on which we return—so my hon. Friend will have a chance to question him then. My hon. Friend has made a passionate case, which the Secretary of State will want to note.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House not think it a very quaint form of democracy when the whole of the media without exception can talk about, and print articles on, what happened yesterday at will, yet Members of Parliament are prevented from talking about it here? Does he recall that 20 years ago, a not dissimilar incident occurred in the House of Lords? Miners created a disturbance, but Members were allowed to speak about the incident at any given time after it took place. Would it not be unthinkable—unthinkable—to suggest that the current situation is different only inasmuch as the people in question are not miners but, in some cases, Tory toffs who are close to the monarchy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Leader of the House that this is business questions and that my statement was very clear. The intention is not to prevent Members of Parliament from speaking about a particular matter; however, these matters will not be raised during business questions. That goes on the record.

Point of Order

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago, the Leader of the House, in answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), indicated that if he wishes to secure an Adjournment debate on matters relating to the administration of the House, he can do so. I have sought on a number of occasions to do precisely that. In particular, I raised with the Leader of the House the need to be able to question and debate the extremely important and interesting annual report of the House of Commons Commission. However, I have been advised that there is no Minister who can reply to such a debate. Can you give me some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how we can raise such matters? As I understand it, we cannot have an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall unless there is a Department and a Minister who can respond to it.

Mr. Speaker: As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is right: there is no ministerial responsibility in this regard. But all Members of this House have access to me, and of course, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) answers on my behalf on these issues. So there is a way of raising them, but not through debate on the Adjournment of the House.

CRIMINAL LAW

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)( Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) and Police Reform Act 2002 (Modification) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders (28 June and 6 November 2003),
	That the following provision shall apply to the Employment Relations Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Programme Order of 14th January 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.— [Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Employment Relations Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Duty Of Employer To Provide Information To Union

Lords amendment No. 1.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17, 56, 59 to 67 and 70.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome hon. Members to this afternoon's discussions and deliberations. I note the absence of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who is on parental leave. I wish him every success and hope that everything goes well.
	This is a large group of amendments, all of which relate to part 1 of the Bill and concern the statutory recognition procedure. Many of the amendments within the group are technical or consequential. For example, amendment No. 1 makes a small change to the way a person's "workplace" is described to ensure that consistent language is used throughout trade union law. However, some of the amendments are more significant than that, and I shall mainly focus on them in my opening remarks.
	Amendment No. 2 addresses a situation in which the Central Arbitration Committee is required to hold a ballot, even though more than 50 per cent. of the relevant work force are union members. The CAC must currently take three criteria into account when deciding whether a ballot is held. In particular, if the CAC is informed by a significant number of union members that they do not want the union to bargain on their behalf, the CAC must proceed by arranging a ballot. That has caused problems in practice, because it gives insufficient discretion to the CAC to assess the quality of the evidence put before it, including evidence that workers were pressurised by the employer to write letters to the CAC that did not reflect their true views. The amendment therefore introduces some necessary discretion for the CAC to assess the credibility of evidence in determining whether a ballot should be held.
	Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 relate to the definition of unfair practices during recognition ballots in clause 9. Amendment No. 3 changes the definition of an "offer" to induce a person to vote in a particular way or abstain from voting in a recognition ballot. We consider that the current definition may be drawn too widely and might cut across the normal campaigning activity of either the union or the employer in discussing the consequences of recognition. Amendment No. 3 therefore provides more precise wording on the nature of the offer by referring to the payment of money or the giving of "money's worth". That new definition of an unfair "offer" therefore focuses on the things commonly associated with the practice of "bribing and treating", which, as we know, is explicitly outlawed in public elections.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 create a new unfair practice of making an "outcome specific" offer. Such offers are not explicitly linked to a person's agreement to vote in a particular way or not to vote at all. Instead, they represent more general offers to make payments to the work force or give them money's worth provided the outcome of the ballot goes a particular way. Such offers are clearly designed to interfere with the ballot and should therefore be categorised as an unfair practice. Again, we have taken the trouble to ensure that that new unfair practice does not impede normal campaigning by either party, or encourage speculative complaints to the CAC that an unfair practice has occurred.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 concern the remedies available to the CAC where either the employer or the union is adjudged to have committed an unfair practice during a recognition ballot. When it left this House, clause 9 of the Bill did not define those remedies and provided a power for the Secretary of State to set them by order, which was clearly unsatisfactory. We indicated our desire to introduce amendments in the other place that would set out the remedies and sanctions in the Bill, and these amendments fulfil that commitment.
	Among other things, amendment No. 7 empowers the CAC to award recognition, where an employer's practice involves the extreme behaviour of committing acts of violence or dismissing a union activist. It also allows the CAC to award recognition where the employer commits two lesser unfair practices or fails to take any remedial actions that the CAC might order. The CAC has corresponding sanctions to refuse the union's application for recognition, where the union commits the unfair practices.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 also provide for ballots to be rerun where an unfair practice has occurred and might have corrupted the initial ballot. In devising that system, we have given scope to the CAC to exercise discretion as needed. For example, it is not required to rerun a ballot where the party that was the victim of an unfair practice has won the ballot.
	Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 make the corresponding changes to the definition of unfair offers during derecognition ballots, and they also establish the corresponding system of remedies. They are virtually identical to the amendments that I just discussed, although some additional refinements deal with the special case in which a worker seeks to derecognise the union. All the other amendments in the group are either technical or consequential.
	The amendments significantly improve the Bill. They are the product of detailed prior consultation with key stakeholders, and I therefore urge the House to agree to them.

Henry Bellingham: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for sending me a comprehensive note on the amendments, which, as he pointed out, are all Government amendments. We take the view that they are sensible: my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon spoke for the Opposition in the debate and discussions in another place, where she made it clear that they significantly improve the Bill.
	As the Minister pointed out, the statutory recognition procedure is important. The current definition of offers of inducement either not to participate or to abstain is too wide and could cut into normal campaigning, so the Minister has done the right thing. On amendments Nos. 7 and 8, will he confirm that there would be no need to rerun a ballot in which unfair practices occurred if the injured party wins? On balance, the amendments make sensible, albeit minor, improvements to the Bill.

Robert Smith: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I thank the Minister for his best wishes. If and when the good news arrives, I will pass it on.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned that the Minister provided him with a briefing. Perhaps our channels of communication are bogged down and the briefing reached my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon but not me, or perhaps the briefing never reached my hon. Friend.
	The briefing would have been useful, because the amendments are technical and detailed. The amendments are welcome, because they make sense of how a campaign can be fought. It is sensible to hold the genuine debate about the benefits of recognition in the open, without being sidetracked into whether those benefits are inducements. There is clearly a debate to be had in each recognition ballot, and it should be open for people to make a strong case, if they believe that recognition will advance their cause. I welcome the practical, common-sense approach and the fact that the CAC will have the discretion carefully to judge the balance rather than using a purely numerical measure.

Bob Spink: I welcome the amendments, which are broadly sensible. On amendment No. 7, when a ballot is rerun after unfair practice, what is the limit on the CAC's discretion? For instance, can the CAC resist a re-ballot if the side that lost wants a re-ballot and there has been some unfair practice? Would the CAC examine the degree of unfair practice and make a judgment whether it changed the result of the ballot, or would it simply allow a re-ballot in any circumstances?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome hon. Members' contributions to the debate, which show that the union recognition procedure generally works, which is why the Bill does not change it substantially.
	On unfair practices, the CAC has proved that it is capable of examining such issues in great detail and coming up with the right result. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) fears that the CAC may overstep the mark. However, if unfair practices exist, the injured party does not have to go for a re-ballot. The CAC will have powers to examine all the evidence, and its judgment will be held to account by employment tribunals, which is a clear safeguard.
	I welcome the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and apologise for the e-mail being sent to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). No attempt was made to take him out of the process.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 21
	 — 
	Information About Employees To Be Balloted On Industrial Action

Lords amendment No. 18.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 32 and 57.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 amend clauses 21 and 24. Those clauses simplify and clarify the provisions requiring unions to provide notices to employers in advance of an industrial action ballot and any subsequent industrial action. Unions and employers have generally welcomed both clauses and no serious objections have been raised about them. However, it was brought to our attention that they could be improved on in an important respect if we made allowances for notices to refer to information given by reference to the established practice of deducting union subscriptions at source. That system, known colloquially as "check off" remains widespread in this country and covers many millions of workers. It is a common way of paying union subscriptions in large organisations and in the public sector.
	It has been established through case law that unions will often be able to meet their current legal obligations by referring to their members paying by this system in notices. That arrangement has provided unions with a ready means of referring accurately to their members. It has also allowed employers easily to identify individuals through their payroll systems. As currently worded, the clause provided less scope to unions to refer to check-off information as a shortcut to meeting their legal obligations. That was regrettable, and both employers and unions would have lost out as a result.
	Our intention in this group of amendments is to ensure that unions can draw on their check-off information to meet their obligations in whole or in part. Lords amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 21 make the necessary changes to clause 21. Amendment No. 23, together with amendments Nos. 25 to 28, makes the corresponding changes to clause 24.
	Lords Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 31 are technical amendments to the notice provisions. They will ensure that consistent wording is used throughout trade union law when describing the workplaces of employees. Earlier this afternoon we agreed a similar technical amendment—Lords amendment No.1 to part I of the Bill. I believe that the amendments improve the Bill, providing flexibility and lightening the regulatory burden. It should therefore be easy to comply with the law, especially in complicated situations where many thousands of employees are involved.
	The effect will be achieved without in any way reducing the quality of the information that the employers receive. Indeed, as I have explained, the option of providing check-off information will often give the employer more complete information than he would otherwise receive. He can access that information very easily with minimal cost through an examination of his pay records, which will normally be computerised.
	Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 57 amend the landmark protections against unfair dismissal for employees taking protected industrial action, which were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999. Our review of the 1999 Act noted that industrial action has remained relatively low in the UK since the eight-week period of protection was introduced. In fact, the number of stoppages is at an all-time low. On several occasions during the Bill's passage, we have debated the adequacy of the eight-week period. Trade unions have called for indefinite protection for workers taking part in lawful industrial action. However, the Government have always taken the view that it is necessary to place a time limit on the period for which it is automatically unfair to dismiss someone taking protected industrial action. We need to balance the legitimate interests of all concerned.
	In the other place, amendments were repeatedly tabled on that topic and we noted the strong views of unions and others. We therefore think that a modest extension of the protected period should be made. I should add that the extension affects only a small number of stoppages each year. This group of amendments extends the protections against unfair dismissal for employees taking lawfully organised official industrial action from eight weeks to 12 weeks. I am confident that the extension to 12 weeks will not adversely affect the amount of strike activity or the climate of industrial relations. Again, I strongly urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.

Henry Bellingham: As the Minister pointed out, the amendments are once again the result of considerable discussion in the other place. I have discussed them with my noble Friend, Baroness Miller of Hendon, and reflected on the debates in the other place. I agree that the amendments improve the system of industrial action ballots and ballot notices.
	Will the Minister clarify one particular point? For those individuals who do not pay subscriptions via the check-off system, the requirements in the clauses still apply, but how will the two different groups of employees be treated under the balloting system? The Minister mentioned that, but I would be grateful for some further clarification. Otherwise, we have no difficulty with the amendments, which go a small way towards improving the Bill.

Robert Smith: At this late stage, just one matter occurs to me. In using the check-off system, is there absolutely no risk of conflict with data protection provisions? Has the legislation been drafted in such a way that no one could suddenly upset the system by careful use of data protection? That is my only concern.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for Opposition Members' inquiries. The check-off procedure operates in large workplaces in the public sector where there is a large union membership. It is an effective and efficient way of collecting subscriptions without impeding productivity. It is different in smaller workplaces. The Bill does not affect either method of collection. We checked the possibilities relating to data protection and I am happy to say that it is not a problem.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 28
	 — 
	Inducements Relating To Union Membership Or Activities

Lords amendment No. 33.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 43 and 58.

Gerry Sutcliffe: This group of amendments makes two sets of changes to the clauses of the Bill that implement the European Court's judgment in the cases of Wilson and Palmer. Let me start with amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has drawn attention to the fact that new section 145B, which would be inserted by clause 28, provides rights to the members of recognised unions only. It considers that, in cases where a union is seeking recognition, new section 145B needs to provide comparable protections to ensure that members have the right not to be offered inducements by the employer for the purpose of securing that their terms will not be determined by collective agreement in the future.
	Having looked at the arguments put forward and having consulted the stakeholders, we concluded that the Joint Committee's analysis is correct. So to ensure our compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, we believe that the scope of new section 145B should be extended. Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38 make the necessary changes to clause 28.
	Let me now describe the second set of amendments, which cover the other nine in the group. In combination, the amendments change the definition of a "worker" for the purposes of new sections 145A to 145E, and for the purposes of the existing sections 146 to 150 of the 1992 Act. The current definition of worker for those purposes is provided in section 296 of the 1992 Act. The Bill covers people "seeking work" and is not limited solely to those in employment. It was never our intention that the protections should extend to those seeking work. Their trade union rights are contained in section 137 of the 1992 Act.
	These amendments therefore adjust the definition of worker to ensure that it does not cover those seeking work, thereby ensuring that the rights are confined to the target group and that overlapping rights for workers seeking employment are not created. The first set of amendments implements a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the second makes necessary technical changes to the Bill. I urge the House again to agree to the amendments.

Henry Bellingham: Again, the Minister has explained clearly that this group of technical amendments flows from the Wilson and Palmer case, and they certainly improve the Bill. In Committee, we discussed at some length the definition of workers who enjoy rights. The Minister is right to say that it was always intended that that should cover all workers in employment. At the time, despite his many civil servants, he did not spot that the provision also unintentionally covered workers seeking employment. The Opposition should have spotted that small anomaly, and I dare say that my colleague the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) should have done so too, but I think that we can be forgiven. There may be a good legal reason to explain why we missed it, but the amendments ensure that the coverage is limited to the target group of those in employment. That must be positive, and we welcome the change.

Robert Smith: These amendments prove the worth of our bicameral system, which ensures that errors get spotted before it is too late. I also welcome the fact that the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have been addressed. That shows how useful it is to have a human rights factor in our legislation, as it means that we can try to get our law right so that people do not need to waste time going to a foreign court to ensure that their rights are implemented.

Gerry Sutcliffe: These amendments arose from a complicated and complex investigation of the ECHR judgment. That is how the question of the definition came to light, so hon. Members should not be too hard on themselves for not spotting the problem. Members of the House of Lords consider these matters line by line and issue by issue and over many years they have accrued a great deal of expertise. It is right that the processes available in this House enable other bodies to submit their views. The Joint Committee expressed its view very clearly, and we responded with this solution. I admit that the solution does not meet all requirements, but we believe that it is a fair attempt to protect all workers who are affected.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 32
	 — 
	      Exclusion And Expulsion From Trade Unions Attributable To Conduct

Lords amendment No. 44.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 45.

Gerry Sutcliffe: During the Standing Committee stage of the Bill, I brought forward a new clause to give unions the latitude to deal adequately with political activists who pursue a racist or xenophobic political agenda. At that time, I indicated that the Government and the TUC were giving further consideration to the drafting of the remedies provisions.
	I am glad to be able to say that we brought forward amendments on this point in the other place that expressly refer an employment tribunal to the union's objectives, as well as its rules, when determining whether the minimum award should apply. That was a key issue for the TUC, which was worried by the fact that many unions do not refer to their equality or anti-racist policies in their rule books.
	The provisions affected by these amendments operate where a person is excluded or expelled from a union mainly because he or she is a member of a political party but partly because of other conduct. In combination, the amendments disapply the minimum award where the other conduct in question is contrary to the union's rules or objectives, provided that it was reasonably practicable for the person concerned to have ascertained the objectives in question.
	The amendments give the degree of transparency that we have been aiming for, and improve the practical implementation of this clause. They satisfy the TUC's concerns on this point and, for these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to them.

Henry Bellingham: These amendments were proposed when trade union legal eagles decided that the Bill needed to be improved. Opposition Members have had discussions with the trade union movement about the Bill, and I have met TUC general secretary Brendan Barber. We may not agree about much, but we do agree about some things. We are pragmatic and practical when it comes to improving the Bill, and common sense is our watchword. We support the amendment.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and welcome his optimism about the relationship between the Conservative party and the trade union movement. I know that he has met Brendan Barber, and I encourage other Opposition Members to do the same.
	The matter at issue here was important, and had the potential to open up a legal minefield. Again, I ask the House to support the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 45 agreed to.

Clause 34
	 — 
	Disapplication Of Qualifying Period And Upper Age Limit For Unfair Dismissal

Lords amendment No. 46.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, that the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 50, 68, 69 and 71.

Gerry Sutcliffe: This group of amendments relates to part 3 of the Bill, and covers three topics, which I shall deal with in turn.
	Amendment No. 46 is a purely technical amendment designed to ensure that the existing provisions relating to employment tribunal cases, where there may be implications for national security, achieve the scope originally intended on their introduction in 1999.
	Amendment No. 47 introduces a protection for employees who are dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated because they serve on juries or are summoned to do so. Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 are consequential to amendment No. 47.
	Earlier this year, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the categories of ineligibility for jury service and excusal as of right from jury service, and thus increased the numbers of people eligible to serve on juries. We are concerned that this wider eligibility may prompt some employers to ill treat employees, either by dismissing them or in some other way, because they find it inconvenient to release them for jury service. At the moment, there is no special protection for employees in that position. They can, of course, claim under the general unfair dismissal legislation, but to do so they must have completed a year's service with their employer, and claims are subject to an upper age limit. Moreover, there is no protection against detrimental treatment short of dismissal. We believe that it is right that special protection should now be introduced. As Lord Sainsbury said when he introduced these amendments in the other place, they are important new protections.
	Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 make purely technical amendments to clause 38, addressing a drafting inconsistency relating to the operation of the flexible working law. They amend incorrect cross references in the Employment Rights Act 1996 to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Henry Bellingham: As the Minister said, these amendments give extra protection to employees who might be disciplined by employers for serving on a jury. Jury service has been extended substantially, and some of the exempt categories have been removed.
	It would beggar belief if an employer were to discriminate against an employee because that person had been asked to serve country and community by serving on a jury. The Minister is right to grant special protection for employees treated in that way, or who received detrimental treatment short of dismissal. My only regret is that Opposition Members did not spot this gap in the Bill during the Committee stage and so did not table an amendment of our own on this matter. Had we done so, we might have succeeded in getting that amendment accepted by the Government.

Robert Smith: I strongly support the message sent by the amendments that jury service is a civic duty that should not be impeded in any way by an employer and, in particular, the recognition that not only dismissal but unfair treatment could be used to stop someone from carrying out that duty. If we are to respect jury service, employers should not be allowed to stand in the way of people undertaking it. The legislation sends a strong signal to confirm that we recognise the importance of jury service.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I am grateful for the contribution from both hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should not be too hard on himself. He made many eloquent speeches to the Committee over a long period of time. We listened carefully to most of them but were unable to accept any of his amendments. However, we have acted on the intentions behind them in some instances. Jury service is important to our communities and it is right that people are protected in the few cases where problems occur.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 50 agreed to.
	After Clause 41
	Lords amendment No. 51.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 55.

Gerry Sutcliffe: One always seeks to take note of instructions from the Whips, but I shall not speak for an hour on these amendments. This package of amendments improves the procedures for enforcing the minimum wage. The purpose of the amendments is straightforward. Under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 as presently drafted, compliance officers are unable to withdraw enforcement notices, which set out the arrears due to workers, even if they realise they have made an error or new evidence has come to light. The position is the same for penalty notices, which are issued when employers refuse to comply with enforcement notices. That means that tribunal hearings are the only way to rectify notices that both sides know to be incorrect, and that then delays the process and wastes the time of the tribunals.
	The amendments therefore allow officers to withdraw enforcement and penalty notices and replace them with corrected notices where necessary. That area of enforcement is technically extremely complex and that is why the clause is so long, but that is the essence of it. The amendments are uncontroversial and were accepted as sensible by both sides in the other place.
	In asking the House to support the amendments, I wish to encourage other hon. Members to take part in this debate.

Henry Bellingham: I thought that amendment No. 51 was on union modernisation. Can the Minister clarify the position?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Union modernisation is the subject of amendment No. 54.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Minister for explaining that. He sent me a helpful note, but it is possible that the numbering of the amendments has changed. On the basis of what he said about the amendments we are considering, I endorse the Government's actions on this matter.

Robert Smith: It is common sense not to have to go to a tribunal if both sides recognise that something is wrong. Therefore, the amendments are eminently sensible.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not wish to be accused of racing through the amendments and I wish to be sure that hon. Members fully understand the implications of the amendments before us.
	The minimum wage was a major piece of legislation for this Government and it is important that it is effectively enforced. On rare occasions, employers are not prepared to pay the minimum wage, and enforcement activity is required. The purpose of the amendments is to try to simplify the procedure and make clear the circumstances in which enforcement will be used. I know that most good employers pay well above the national minimum wage. Concerns were expressed that the national minimum wage would have an impact on the number of jobs created. That was not the case, and I welcome the belated acknowledgement from the Conservatives about the impact it had. I hope that the way in which we have outlined the amendments, and the overall implementation and enforcement of the national minimum wage, will mean that it will reach all those who deserve it.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 52 and 53 agreed to.

Clause 51
	 — 
	Provision Of Money For Union Modernisation

Lords amendment No. 54.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	When the Government announced their intention to establish the union modernisation fund earlier this year, I made it clear that money received from the fund by unions should not be spent for political purposes. As I explained in this House, that is in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which set out that all union expenditure on "political objects" must be made from a separate political fund, which is subject to the approval of all members. Those rules prevent unions from transferring money from their general funds into political funds.
	During the passage of the Bill through the other place, there was some consensus that, despite the safeguards, there remained a risk that some people would perceive the fund as a means of injecting money into trade union political funds, from which the Labour party might benefit. Such misperceptions are dangerous and detract from the excellent reasons for the establishment of the fund, which is intended to assist unions in better performing their valuable role in contributing to productive employment relations to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
	In order to put the matter completely beyond doubt, the amendment therefore clearly sets out on the face of the Bill a clear prohibition on any payment from the union modernisation fund into the political fund of a trade union. In conjunction with the rules on union political funds in the 1992 Act, the amendment categorically rules out the use of the fund to bolster union political funds, either directly or indirectly. It also ensures that the Secretary of State must take all reasonably practicable steps to recover money that is illegally added to a political fund. In addition, it makes it clear that the Secretary of State may impose contractual obligations on unions that receive money from the fund that provide for additional sanctions in cases of abuse. The amendment therefore removes all scope for misunderstandings about the purpose of the union modernisation fund. It achieves its purpose by prohibiting money provided by the Secretary of State under new clause 116A from being added to the political funds of unions. It also entitles the Secretary of State to recover money that has been used by unions in contravention of the prohibition, while ensuring that the Secretary of State may still provide money from the fund on terms providing for additional sanctions where such a contravention occurs.
	The fund has been much misunderstood. The unions look to the Government for help in the same way that the Government support businesses in developing new structures and modern procedures. In the past few years, the number of trade unions has diminished as more amalgamations have taken place. That has meant a fall in the number of full-time trade union officers, and the gender balance and age profile of those officers need to be considered.
	There was never any intention that the unions could use the fund to contribute to their political work. Indeed, when we debated the issue, many Conservative Members described it as a bung to the trade unions in return for political favours. I resented such remarks then, and I resent them now. In a modern economy, all parties need to be able to work together to meet the challenges of globalisation and maintain the level of employment in the UK. We have more people in work than ever before and the lowest level of unemployment.
	We must also meet the changing needs of the work force, whether due to demographic change or people's perception of the world of work nowadays.
	We have seen and continue to see the trade unions as a force for good. We want trade unions and employers' organisations to meet the challenges of a modern economy and we believe that the union modernisation fund, with clear rules on governance—we shall consult about governance—will be viewed in the same way as the partnership fund, which provided many excellent opportunities for employers and unions to work together.
	The fund is vital and I hope that hon. Members take the opportunity to move away from yah-boo politics and support the principle of the fund. The Government will ensure that it is used appropriately.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister said that the fund was important. He pointed out that the unions needed to modernise and that they required Government money to do that. When the Bill was first discussed, we took a tough line and made it clear that we did not believe that the fund was a good use of public money. We emphasised that we believed that the scope of clause 51 was far too wide. Indeed, it provides that the Secretary of State can give a trade union money to enable it to do many different things, such as
	"improve the carrying out of any of its existing functions; prepare to carry out any new function; increase the range of services"
	and so on. Furthermore, there is no cap on the fund.
	We had a bust-up over the clause. We believed that it was one of the provisions about which the Government were wrong, not least because they introduced it at the last moment. We believed that they should have included it at the beginning of our proceedings and consulted employers much more widely. The Minister said that unions need the money for modernisation just as employers' organisations receive money. However, organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors do not receive money from the Government to modernise or communicate better with their members.
	I expressed my concern in Committee, on Second Reading and in discussing the programme motion. Let us assume that the Government make public funds available to the trade unions for modernising, increasing their membership and communicating better with their members, and a specific trade union receives £250,000 or £400,000 for those purposes. It is possible that the money will be used in that way, but what about the rest of the union's money? If Government money had not been made available, the other money, which would otherwise be allocated for the tasks that I outlined, would be available for a political fund. The Minister knows that if the amount of cash in a trade union's coffer is topped up, it will have scope to do all sorts of different things. Although the safeguard in the Lords amendment is welcome, it will not completely prevent abuse.
	The fact that the House of Lords had to amend the measure is a vindication of the concern that we expressed. We shall continue to express that anxiety. Although I have made it clear that there is much in the Bill that the official Opposition support, we are committed to reviewing the union modernisation fund because we do not believe that it is a good use of public money and we feel that it is unfairly weighted to one side of the industrial equation. I congratulate the Minister on the small improvement to prevent abuses, but we believe that the clause is fundamentally wrong.

Robert Smith: I must welcome the amendment because it was tabled in another place in response to an amendment from my colleagues in the House of Lords. It was designed to place on the face of the Bill the assurance that money that went into the modernisation fund would not go into a political fund. As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, it is sad that the Government could not recognise the importance of that from the start and that it took the Bill's passage through another place to provide that reassurance. It shows that it is dangerous for a Government to introduce such a controversial provision at a late stage. If it had been included at the outset, progress might have been smoother and more measured.
	When the fund is allocated, it will be important to ensure that it is properly audited and policed to ensure compliance with the clause. Perhaps the Minister can make clear the way in which the Government envisage policing the clause and implementing the assurance on the face of the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is sad at the end of the process to have discord about the fund. On that subject, the objectives and motivations of the parties are different. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has tried through his discussions with Brendan Barber and his positive consideration of many aspects of the Bill in the new culture of industrial relations that the Government are trying to engender, the deep-rooted suspicion of the role of trade unions remains. He could not help himself; he could not say that trade unions are or could be a force for good in a modern society. I suspect that he could not say that because the Conservative party took great delight in trying to destroy the trade union movement, which it described as "the enemy within". Government Communications Headquarters was a prime example of that.
	I hope that we have moved on from those days and that we all want a modern, vibrant economy. There was a furore in the House when the clause was introduced but the Government were not trying to hide something at the last minute. We used the same procedure when we established the partnership fund, which produced good work between employers and employees. We used the same method then. However, we listened to the debate and were surprised when not only the Conservative party—for, I am sure, understandable reasons from its past—but the Liberal Democrats objected to the union modernisation fund. They said that it was a step too far. Again, there was the suspicion that the trade unions would not use the money appropriately. Yet all hon. Members should know from experience in their constituencies and elsewhere that trade unionism locally, regionally and nationally can enhance the country's productivity. We have only to consider the union learning representatives and the union learning fund to understand that.
	Let me deal with the points about safeguards. The fund will go out to consultation, which will include employer organisations, trade unions and any other stakeholder who believes that there is a need to consider the projects. I personally believe that the outcome will be a board that is similar to the partnership board and comprises trade unions and employers who will evaluate the bids as they are made. I believe that that will provide the safeguards and answer hon. Members' concerns.
	The union modernisation fund is a major part of what we are trying to achieve in a different culture of industrial relations. It is not true that business organisations are not funded. They are funded through the way in which we deal with projects; I envisage dealing with projects through the fund in the same way. I hope that Conservative Members will view the matter positively and support the principles of the fund in the context of trying to change industrial relations in the United Kingdom. We have already achieved that in the legislation that has been passed since 1997 to ensure that the Government can set minimum standards. However, the best way to resolve industrial relations issues is in the workplace. We need to equip people to carry out that job.
	We are reaching the end of our deliberations. I want to place on record my thanks to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debates and the evaluation of the Bill and, of course, all the officials who have worked so hard throughout to ensure that we have a credible and important measure.

Henry Bellingham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to take his comments as read. I am sure that he has expressed them on a previous occasion. However polite his contribution was intended to be, it would be out of order.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 55 to 71 agreed to.

HIV/AIDS (Developing World)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Hilary Benn: First, may I say how glad I am—I am sure that this will go for other hon. Members—to have this opportunity to debate the impact that AIDS is having on the prospects for development around the world? May I take this opportunity in our first such debate to welcome the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to the Front Bench? We look forward very much to hearing what he has to say on this extremely important issue.
	Very simply, AIDS presents an unprecedented challenge to the developing world. It is one of the greatest threats that we currently face to the eradication of poverty and therefore to the achievement of the millennium development goals. I say that because, if one looks back on the history of the past two generations, we have seen in developing countries real improvements in life expectancy. Since the mid-1960s, average life expectancy in developing countries has increased by 18 years, but HIV/AIDS is now in the process of wiping out all that gain in life expectancy in some countries—in other words, reversing four decades of progress. The massive cost in terms of human life and the enormous economic burden on families and communities should not be underestimated.
	The first AIDS cases were identified in the 1980s, and the number of people affected by HIV has risen rapidly since then. Today, about 58 million people—no one knows for sure—around the globe are HIV-positive. So far, 20 million people have lost their lives to the disease. Women and young children, including the rising number of children orphaned by AIDS, are particularly vulnerable. Six million young people are living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, three quarters of them female.
	Twelve million children have lost one or both of their parents to AIDS. Perhaps the House would just pause for a moment to contemplate losing the most important source of support that we rely on, certainly when we are young—our parents, one or both. Think of all those children who are growing up without the care of a mother or father. To make matters worse, that number is estimated to become a staggering 18 million children by 2010. One of the consequences is that an entire generation of grandparents now have to look after an entire generation of their grandchildren, because the generation in between—their children's generation—is in the process of dying. If there is one thing that we as parents fear more than anything else it is that our children will die before we do, because that is not how it is meant to be; it is not in the natural order of things.
	In June, the all-party group on Africa published its report "Averting Catastrophe: AIDS in the 21st century", which said:
	"Sub-Saharan Africa is home to between 25.0 and 28.2 million people infected with HIV. UNAIDS estimate that, in 2003 alone, 2.3 million Africans died of AIDS. Despite high death rates, the number of people infected continues to rise as new infections outstrip the number of deaths. In 2002, seven countries saw infection levels surpass 30 per cent. in the age band 15–49 years."
	I want to take the opportunity of the debate to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who chairs the all-party group on Africa, and all his colleagues—some of whom are in the Chamber today—on that outstanding piece of work, which is a real beacon to all-party groups in demonstrating what they can do when applying their minds and expertise to a subject of such importance.
	Last week, I was in Nigeria, which is home to one in 10 of the world's HIV-positive population. The number of infected people in that country is estimated to reach 15 million by 2010. Those figures will outstrip the current number of people who are HIV-positive in southern Africa, where many people would agree that crisis point has already been reached. Yet it is still possible that, if we collectively do the right things now, we could avert the catastrophically high levels of infection that have been predicted, thereby reducing the subsequent death rates. It is important for the House to acknowledge that this is not just about Africa, although that is where we see the scale of the epidemic manifested most clearly. Asia and eastern Europe also face rapid increases, and there is a real danger of a generalised epidemic unless we take action now.
	The UK Government are committed to doing what we can to help to halt AIDS and to reverse the spread of HIV globally. Hon. Members will have seen the "Call for Action" document that we published in December last year and the document "Taking Action: the UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world", which was launched by the Prime Minister on 20 July. In that document, we sought to set out the practical steps that we are trying to take in working towards all the internationally agreed targets to fight AIDS—in particular, the millennium development goals, the UN General Assembly declaration of commitment and the UN International Conference on Population and Development action plan.
	We have pledged to work with others to try to prevent infections—the international target is to reduce the rates among young people by 25 per cent.—to increase access to sexual and reproductive health services; to support the World Health Organisation to get 3 million people into treatment by 2005; to meet the needs of orphans and vulnerable children; to put in place the three "ones"; to increase research; and to meet the millennium development goal target of being
	"on track to slow the progress of HIV and AIDS by 2015".
	Given the expertise on this subject that there is in the Chamber, hon. Members will recognise that those targets are extremely ambitious, and we are not currently on track to meet many of them. That is especially true of some of the 2005 targets, and in particular the WHO target. Although we recognise that it is likely that some of them will not be met, it is important that we hold on to ambition and aspiration in trying to tackle this terrible epidemic.
	UNAIDS calculates that £6.6 billion is needed to tackle AIDS next year. Although a significant funding gap remains, we have seen in the past few years a significant increase in the international attention given to AIDS and the amount of money that countries are committing to fight AIDS. The US President's initiative on AIDS has committed $15 billion over five years. The UK, too, is seeking to play its part in meeting that need. We are the world's second largest bilateral donor, according to UNAIDS.
	We have committed ourselves to spend at least £1.5 billion over the next three years. That is a consequence of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, which will involve further significant increases in the international development budget, including at least £150 million for orphans and other vulnerable children, especially in Africa. We made that commitment because when we consulted on our call for action, which we published in December last year, one of the messages that came back very strongly was that people did not think that the world or, indeed, the UK were doing enough for orphans and vulnerable children, and we reflected that in the strategy that we published in July.
	In July, I also announced that, over the next four years, the UK will give £36 million to UNAIDS, which plays such an important role in co-ordinating the global fight, and £80 million to UNFPA—the UN Population Fund—to support its hugely important work in HIV prevention and its sexual and reproductive health work, particularly with women. We also announced that we would double our support for the global fund, which fights AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, to £150 million over the next three years. We have therefore pledged £250 million to the global fund to support its work until 2008. To date, we have pledged the third highest amount of any G8 country and the fourth most of any donor to support the fund. I am proud of that record of support for that very important fund.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the Government on all that they are doing; they are certainly moving apace, as they should. However, will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the part that the private sector in this country plays? In particular, will he pay tribute to Merck Sharp and Dohme and the Gates Foundation, which have each pledged £33.3 million to the African comprehensive AIDS partnership? Merck is also providing free medicines in some cases.

Hilary Benn: I readily pay tribute to the work that a number of trusts, funds, voluntary organisations and, indeed, the pharmaceutical companies themselves are doing, including the work that has been done to reduce the price of anti-retrovirals—a point that I shall return to later. In this fight, we need all the help that we can get. I genuinely pay tribute to the contribution that the hon. Gentleman has described.
	Money, however, is not the only answer, as I think everybody recognises. We also need stronger political leadership. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his outstanding leadership of the all-party group on AIDS. I think that it is one of the world's foremost cross-party responses to the crisis. He, together with colleagues right across the House, has done outstanding work to make sure that we debate the issue and that the Government are kept to task in ensuring that we take the right steps to make a difference.
	We need such global leadership, because as we move to 2005—the UK will have the presidencies of the G8 and the European Union—we need to encourage everyone, including other leaders and other countries. All the evidence shows that when there is strong political leadership, we can halt and reduce the spread of HIV.
	Let us take the example of Uganda, where there has been courageous political leadership. By that, I mean that it has been open and honest about the disease, how one gets it and what one can do to protect oneself. It has been fighting stigma and discrimination, and politicians and others, including community leaders, have been open and honest about the issue. All that work has helped to turn the tide of infection. Despite the fact that Uganda once had one of the world's highest infection rates, year on year the number of new infections continues to fall.
	In Senegal, HIV never really took off. That was not good luck; once again, there was strong political commitment. People were brave and they spoke out. A free media provided information and a determined effort was seen to make things happen and to change people's behaviour. In Thailand, HIV raged at very high levels among the most stigmatised in society—sex workers and drug users—and then it turned around. There, the Government, working alongside others, helped to take the steps that were needed to save people's lives. They have succeeded in that country.
	The truth is that we need a continued concerted effort on the part of the whole international community while recognising, however, that the people who face the biggest burden are the Governments and health ministries of the developing countries that are most severely afflicted by the AIDS crisis. To be honest, they are struggling with the task. It would be enough to make any Government struggle. However, we also have a practical as well as a moral responsibility to make sure that this increased international effort, the increasing resources that we are making available, and the desire to help are used in a way to help hard-pressed Ministers and officials in health Departments, doctors and others to deal with the disease.
	In that context, I have talked about the successes in Uganda, but I also point out that, in 2003, 25 separate AIDS donor planning missions went to that country. The honest truth is that we can all turn up in succession, knock on the door and say, "We have come from the United Kingdom, you have a terrible AIDS crisis and we want to help. Here's our programme. Can we discuss how we are going to work together and how you will report to us on how you are using the money that we will make available?" That is very well meaning, but if there are another 24 people in the queue outside, we take up the time of Health Ministers and officials and that means that we are not pooling our resources, effort and desire to help in a way that will make the biggest difference.
	For that reason, support for the three "ones" is important and that is why the UK Government have played their role in arguing that we should all sign up to them. The principles are very simple. They are not terribly profound but, boy, do we need them. They are that, in every country, we should have one plan for tackling AIDS; one body with responsibility for doing it; and one way of monitoring the progress that is being made. In other words, we should pool the effort, the energy, the money, the good will and support around one plan, one body and one way of reporting. When I was at the World Bank spring meeting in April this year, we organised an event to get major donors to sign up to these principles.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State is making a number of important points. However, in making the point about the three "ones", will he also acknowledge that part of the reason why Uganda was so successful was that the effort was not only politically led? Uganda brought in many other outside bodies—the Churches, communities, non-governmental organisations and so on.

Hilary Benn: Indeed, I acknowledge that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Leadership is required from everyone. When I used the phrase "political leadership", I did not mean just party political leadership or leadership from politicians. As the hon. Gentleman said, the role of NGOs, Churches and others is to provide leadership in this debate. Without that support, there would not have been the progress made in Uganda.
	I was about to say that the principles are good, but the question is: how do we turn those principles into practice on the ground? If countries want donor funds to be provided through a pooled funding mechanism, we are happy to do that. We will ensure that, by replacing any lost funding, the measures do not reduce the resources that are available. We will also continue to work very closely with UNAIDS, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, the UNFPA, the European Community and the global fund to ensure that all the countries that are affected by AIDS are able to tackle the crisis effectively and not just those where the UK happens to have a country programme. Of course, we do not have programmes everywhere, and the World Bank, the European Community and the global fund are major funders of AIDS programme and we support them, too, through our financial support.
	The other truth is that success will depend on action by developing countries themselves. The first point to make is that prevention is the fundamental building block. If we can prevent people from becoming HIV positive in the first place and going on to develop AIDS, we deal with many of the problems with which we would otherwise have to cope. Therefore the UK's funding is used to support many innovative programmes throughout the world.
	When I was in Nigeria in December last year, I went to the local market in Abuja and saw a creative performance taking place on the back of a converted lorry in the market square. It was funny, engaging and made the point about prevention and openness. Afterwards, the performers—we are supporting this project—went out into the crowd to distribute leaflets and answer questions. That is one small example of a practical approach to get information about the disease, how one gets it and what one can do to protect oneself out to people who need it in such a society.
	In another practical contribution, we are helping to provide condoms in many countries. UNFPA says that, in 2003, the UK helped to pay for 490 million condoms around the world. We often work closely with other donors, especially the United States, to support innovative marketing campaigns to get male and, indeed, female condoms to those who are most at risk.
	We also have to recognise that AIDS is far more than about just health. It affects education, social structures, cultures and economies. For example, girls who spend longer in school are less likely to get HIV. In Kenya, we support work in about 2,000 schools, and the first 18 months have already resulted in significant changes such as the delayed onset of first sexual experience, less sexual activity and the increased use of condoms. We are now expanding the programme to reach 5,000 schools.
	Malawi, like all countries, depends on education to teach the next generation and to build the skills that the country will need to sustain its economy. However—this is another of the statistics that makes one stop in one's tracks—teachers in Malawi are currently dying faster than they can be trained. In such circumstances, what prospects are there of getting all kids into primary school let alone dealing with the AIDS epidemic? Effective prevention and treatment are not just about saving lives; they are also about reducing poverty and helping economies to develop.
	We need to be determined to ensure that treatments reach the poorest people, which is why we are trying to make sure that half of those who benefit are women and girls. Getting women on treatment is good not only for women themselves, but for society, because if mothers live longer, there will be fewer AIDS orphans and the figures will not turn out to be as bad as was feared.
	That is a reason why we, with others, continue to invest heavily in supporting the establishment of health services. The UK has invested over £1.5 billion in that since 1997. We are working with communities and people with HIV to help them to play their role in treatment and care. One-a-day drugs have simpler treatment regimes than other therapies, so it is easier not to forget to take them. We need better ways of distributing drugs so that people may access them more easily. Despite the welcome fact that drug prices have come down, only about 440,000 people in developing countries were on anti-retroviral therapy in June, which shows how far we have yet to go to reach the World Health Organisation "3 by 5" target, so we must work harder. We must understand that even if the drugs were free and available in huge numbers, health services, with doctors and nurses, would be needed to administer, treat and care for patients, so we must work on both those fronts.
	We must address stigma and discrimination because they often inhibit people from getting the care and treatment that they need. Women may be too frightened of being beaten or rejected by their husbands to get tested for HIV, even though that could help to save their lives or stop their children from becoming HIV-positive. Stigma and discrimination can literally kill, so promoting human rights and tackling the problem, while dealing with issues involving sexuality, represents an important aspect of what must be done.
	Many people in developing countries are frankly too frightened of HIV to get tested or to access the prevention services that they need, which is why we are working with the most vulnerable groups in many countries as part of our programmes. For example, when I visited Yunnan province in China earlier this year, I saw a programme that we are supporting with drug users and sex workers. That is a leading province in China owing to the fact that the country needs to address the AIDS threat, so it was heartening to see what it was doing with strong leadership from the top.
	We must acknowledge the fact that there is no instant solution to the crisis. If we are to beat AIDS, long-term predictable funding and support are required, which is why as well as increasing our AIDS budget, the Chancellor has proposed the international finance facility as a way of raising additional finance more quickly, which could provide more support for the fight against HIV/AIDS. Predictability is important because ART cannot be turned on and off. Countries need to know that if they start the process—and individuals need to know that if they start taking the drugs—the treatment will be available in the long term because it does not work any other way. Encouraging and supporting developing countries to use the treatment and sustain it over the long term will be a big challenge. We must appreciate that such countries will face difficult choices about who gets the treatment.

Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a problem is developing owing to the short-term use of anti-retrovirals? Sometimes the courses are stopped after six months, so can he tell us what is being done to deal with that problem?

Hilary Benn: That is the exact problem to which I am referring. There are worries about the development of resistance, so long-term sustainability is vital. Ministers and health officials in developing countries say that they need to know what they will receive in the long term so that they can plan ahead and thus avoid the problem that my hon. Friend raised.
	Research can make a contribution towards tackling the epidemic. The UK Government were the first to fund the international AIDS vaccine initiative, which is an attempt to speed up the process of developing an AIDS vaccine. Of course, such a vaccine is the holy grail because we would be in a very different position if we had it. This year, we joined other G8 members in establishing the global HIV vaccine enterprise, which is another attempt to speed up the difficult process of finding a vaccine.
	We also need to develop new HIV prevention technologies, and the UK is supporting microbicides research. That cutting edge hard science is an attempt to develop an effective microbicide—trials are currently taking place in Africa—that women will use. That would enable them to take decisions about their protection, given that it is sometimes difficult for them to get a partner to use a condom. That is one reason why microbicides are important, so we have invested £18 million in the research since 1999.
	I say in all honesty that the world faces no bigger development challenge than beating the epidemic. If children's parents die of AIDS, their lives will be much harder than they would otherwise be. If teachers die of AIDS, we will not be able to educate all the kids whom we want to get into primary schools. If nurses and doctors die of AIDS, they will not be able to administer anti-retrovirals or distribute condoms to people in their communities. If workers die of AIDS, the prospects for economic development in many developing countries will be severely damaged. For every one of those reasons, in addition to the terrible human cost of the disease, we all have a practical and moral responsibility to do everything possible to beat the epidemic.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for his warm welcome to me in this job and his broad and informative review of the growing world crisis. There is little difference on both sides of the House about the problem. Indeed, it is a bit of a challenge to follow the Secretary of State without reiterating everything that he said over the past half hour, but I am nevertheless glad to have the opportunity to debate the matter because it is important to the well-being of the world. No one in the Chamber is in any doubt about the magnitude of the HIV/AIDS crisis and how vital tackling it is to our future and that of others. It is probably the most harrowing cause of misery and poverty in the world today.
	The problem in Britain is bad enough because it is estimated that 50,000 people are living with HIV, which is the highest number ever. We are confident, however, that although the situation is appalling for sufferers, we can at least treat the problem because we are a rich country. For the world as a whole, and especially its poorer countries where the crisis is most acutely concentrated, the problem is far worse.
	It is hard to comprehend the scale of the tragedy. I have written in my speech that 38 million people are now living with the disease, but I have to correct myself because the Secretary of State says that the figure is 58 million—I am sure that he is right. The suffering that comes with the disease is spreading and the virus is on the increase. Last year, nearly 5 million people became infected with HIV, and 2.9 million died from AIDS. The magnitude of those figures is of course appalling, but the situation is worse than that because the disease often strikes the most vigorous and youthful.
	In sub-Saharan Africa alone, some 12 million children have lost one or both parents to AIDS and it is predicted that the number of AIDS orphans will rise to 25 million by 2010. The Secretary of State said that the figure is 18 million, but the scale of the problem is so massive that it almost does not matter how many millions we cite. We must remember that the sufferers live in countries with a national income per head that is typically a small fraction of ours. In the fight against the disease, AIDS to Africa is the equivalent of the Somme to this country in 1916, or even much worse.
	As the Secretary of State said, the AIDS crisis is now evident in Asia. India ranks second only to South Africa on numbers of infections. It reaches that high number although only—one says "only"—about 0.9 per cent. of the adult population is HIV-positive, compared with more than 20 per cent. in South Africa.
	However, if India's rate of infection were to rise to a mere—in comparative terms—5 per cent., not only would millions more Indians be condemned to death, but so could millions of their neighbours. India's population alone is far bigger than Africa's. If the disease were to spread to Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan, we would face a regional epidemic affecting more than a quarter of those alive in the world today. Surely that means—to be fair, I think the Secretary of State said this—that although Africa is the worst affected area at the moment, and thus the natural primary focus of our efforts, there is compelling evidence that future programmes must be designed to arrest a potential massive explosion of HIV/AIDS elsewhere as well.
	The figures are appalling and the agony that they represent is especially severe for the developing world: children without parents; parents without children; children unable to go to school because they are orphans; countries unable to create wealth because their work force is dying of AIDS. This is a crisis that the world must know about and we cannot ignore it. So we fully support the millennium development goal to begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS, poverty and the state of civil society are all linked. That goal must be central to any poverty reduction strategy and if, when we have the presidency of the EU and the G8, we make it a high, if not the top, priority, then all the better.
	I certainly welcome the Department's HIV/AIDS strategy paper and congratulate the Secretary of State on his Department's work. However, a number of concerns arise from the National Audit Office report on the response by the Department for International Development, which I am sure the Minister will mention when he winds up the debate. The report says that there have been problems with sharing new knowledge on tackling HIV/AIDS with the Department's in-country teams. That is worrying, but I am sure the Minister will address it. The report also states that more guidance and advice on treatment could be given to country teams. That again is vital. There are also concerns about how well the Department measures its strategy's effectiveness. Those are serious issues and it will be interesting to hear the ministerial response.
	I recognise DFID's substantial funding of £123 million to India's National AIDS Control Organisation, but that, too, received some criticism from the World Bank, which described the organisation as deficient in its handling of AIDS control schemes. That is a concern when so much money and so much else is involved. I hope, again, that Ministers will say how they think taxpayers' money is being diverted, or used, for that good cause. Of course, it highlights the significance of the debate, which will not go away, which is the relationship between the direct funding of Governments and the role of non-governmental organisations.
	The crux of the matter globally is the balance between prevention and treatment. One prevention strategy, the prominence of which has risen, is the promotion of abstinence. It would be untrue to say that any promotion of abstinence is absolutely naive or misguided because it is not. After all, it forms a third of Uganda's successful ABC strategy—abstinence, be faithful, condoms—which is credited with the drop of infection rates from 30 per cent. to 6 per cent. over the past 12 or so years. However, we must be realistic about human nature. Most people are not born as natural monks or nuns and the promotion of abstinence will only ever go so far. Although we can try to change people's way of life by encouraging abstinence before marriage and faithfulness during marriage, people are bound to engage in sexual activity in more risky circumstances. So, above all, prevention must be about creating a culture of condom use.
	In Britain, buying condoms is as normal as buying a pint of milk. I do not for a moment underestimate the challenge of spreading that safe sex culture, but it is the key to stopping the virus spreading, and I commend the Department for taking that approach. It is also why Thailand is praised as an exemplar in the fight against AIDS. The number of new infections in that country fell from a peak of 140,000 in 1991 to 21,000 in 2003 because of the Thai Government's persistent message on the vital need to use condoms.
	So I hope that the Secretary of State, in his usual adept and diplomatic way, will continue to say to our friends in the American Administration and elsewhere that condoms are a top priority. After all, within the United States prevention of HIV/AIDS has been mainly tackled by encouraging safe sex, and what is right for the United States is also right for the developing world. Resources devoted to tackling HIV/AIDS are precious and we should recognise the American Government's generosity in giving $15 billion over five years towards that aim. However, it would be a terrible shame if some of that were not used as effectively as it might be.
	Prevention is also, of course, cost effective, but there remains the question of the vehicle for changing cultures. NGOs have an invaluable role to play in that, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State thinks that the emphasis in direct budget support in recent years has, to some extent, been at the expense of the effectiveness of NGOs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said in his question on Uganda, NGOs often have a reach that governmental organisations cannot match. In communities in which faith plays a major role, faith-based organisations, for instance, can tie in very effectively with the institutions of civil society to achieve changes in behaviour.
	Before HIV/AIDS can be prevented, however, there must be popular recognition that the problem exists. That cannot be solely provided by the richer countries of the international community. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to do anything other than recognise that the willingness to tackle HIV/AIDS must come from within each country. That can never fully happen without political leadership from the top, as Kofi Annan has said.
	Only if people are told the truth about HIV/AIDS and if the disease is, as the Secretary of State said, not stigmatised can we hope to defeat the epidemic. That is why Chief Buthelezi deserves the highest praise. His family has suffered horribly from the disease and it is real statesmanship to break the stigma and denial of AIDS in South Africa. I hope that the Government will draw President Mbeki's attention to what Chief Buthelezi has said. It really is extraordinary that the President of a country that has 5.3 million sufferers from HIV/AIDS could deny knowing anyone affected by the disease. South Africa is the regional leader and if the Secretary of State and the British Government are prepared to be frank with President Mbeki about the example he sets, the Secretary of State will have the full support of the Opposition.
	It would be a terrible mistake, though, to think that an emphasis on prevention should mean that we regard treatment as a secondary issue. Although prevention and treatment may compete for funding, we must not see them as a matter of either/or. Treatment, after all, gives hope. It changes HIV/AIDS from a death sentence to a lifelong illness. That is what having the disease now means in America and Europe. It is quite simply the difference between life and death.
	A decade ago, treatment cost perhaps $10,000 a year; now it can cost as little as $200—still unaffordable for most in the developing world, but at least within reach if there is adequate budgetary support. Developed donor countries have an essential role in funding treatment, and we must remember that anti-retroviral drugs, like anything else, benefit from economies of scale. The more funding there is for them, the more affordable they will continue to become for the poorest people in the world. Perhaps the most striking and disturbing statistic of all those mentioned today is the fact that only between 400,000 and 500,000 people in the developing world are receiving the treatment from which others could benefit if there was wider access to those drugs.
	We can also hope to see the spread of effective generic anti-retroviral drugs help to dispel belief in magical cures. For some people to preach that certain foods can address the problem is perhaps one of the most evil political deceits of the modern age. With real cures properly available, the word would soon get around that fantasy cures are just that.
	I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that to ensure that resources are devoted to the development of affordable and effective anti-retroviral drugs, a generous proportion of the global health fund should be ring-fenced solely for the propagation of pharmaceutical research into such drugs. We shall reach the ultimate goal of a vaccine or a cure for AIDS only if we spend money on researching treatments.
	AIDS can be tackled if there is a will. I do not doubt that that will permeates every shade of party allegiance or opinion in the House. The Department for International Development is doing its best. It is doing a good job, and I look forward to its doing an even better one.

Sally Keeble: I shall focus on one aspect of the problem, orphans and vulnerable children in sub-Saharan Africa, and examine some of the problems that they face and the measures needed to tackle those problems. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) set out well the global statistics on HIV/AIDS. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new portfolio and hope that his commitment to a similar level of work and political commitment from the Conservative party to tackling HIV/AIDS will be matched by a commitment to funding support should his party ever get back into power. The crisis in the developing world has been brewing for some time and it will take a long time to overcome the problems. Both cross-party political support and long-term financial support are needed.
	As has been said, there are about 12 million HIV/AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, but it is possible to get a much stronger, sharper picture of the scale of the problem by looking at individual countries. Zimbabwe has some 980,000 such children—in other words, 14 per cent. of its children are orphans as a result of HIV/AIDS. Lesotho has 100,000 such children—a smaller number, but one that represents 10 per cent. of that tiny country's children. Kenya—one of the worst affected countries—has about 650,000 such children. Approximately 10 Members are present in the Chamber, so if we assume that each of our constituencies has between 50,000 and 70,000 voters, the figures I have given on the number of HIV/AIDS orphans are roughly equivalent to the entire population of all the constituencies of the Members now present.
	We sometimes become so mesmerised by the size of the problem that we miss some of the human grief that lies behind it. The stories behind the statistics—what actually happens to some of those children—are far worse. Colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), might remember seeing a video featuring a Kenyan girl who was being helped by an organisation there. In the video, she appeared to be at death's door, but I met her on a visit to Kenya and found that, after a short course of treatment, her condition had improved. There are not the drugs to treat her for long, but her condition has improved. What the video did not show clearly was that, like many other HIV/AIDS patients, she also had tuberculosis—there is a terrible link between the two diseases—and when I met her, she had also only recently completed a course of treatment for tuberculosis. In the short time since the video was shot, both of her siblings who were shown in the video had died of HIV/AIDS, as had her father, although her mother was still alive.
	There are plenty of children like that little girl. As I said, the stories behind the statistics are grim. I commend to Ministers at the Department for International Development the excellent proposals on tackling the problem of HIV/AIDS orphans in the all-party Africa group's report. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York on his work as chairman of that group. I also commend the five principles set out in the UNICEF framework: to strengthen the capacity of families, to examine community-based responses, to ensure that orphans and vulnerable children get access to services, to provide protection to such children and to raise awareness. I am sure that those principles will be amplified in the forthcoming Capetown conference on the problems of HIV/AIDS orphans.
	Careful and detailed consideration must be given to the enormous role that the British Government and DFID can play in supporting countries in the monumental task of putting those five principles into practice. Let me illustrate that with examples from countries where I have seen the work carried out with orphans and vulnerable children. In Lesotho responsibility for work with such children rests with the office of the first lady: she is a superb champion of the cause of those children and an inspiring and highly qualified woman, but she is not part of the Government. She is doing interesting work to influence traditional community figures to take seriously the problems of the orphans, but she pointed out to me the uphill struggle that they face.
	Lesotho's economy is in difficulty because it has lost most of the income it derived from migrant labour; it is also experiencing drought and food shortages. Many of the parents who used to work in South Africa are not getting work there any more; furthermore, migrant labourers are especially susceptible to HIV/AIDS problems. The scale of the deaths has led to a lack of community support systems, so there is real difficulty in supporting children. In addition, there is no legal framework to tackle many of the problems affecting the children, such as with their inheritance and property rights: for example, HIV/AIDS orphans have been threatened with having their houses bulldozed or taken away by family members, or questions have been raised about their parentage. The first lady pointed out that, as well as resources, there was a need for support for the structures and legal frameworks needed to unpick some of the complicated problems.
	Zimbabwe has about 980,000 such children—about three or four times the population of Leeds, Central. The social services department in Zimbabwe's second city, Bulawayo, has no qualified social workers—they have all left the country. There are more Zimbabwean social workers in one London borough that I know than there are in the whole of Bulawayo. Simple work like managing the procedures affecting the children are impossible, because there are no people who are trained and able to do the work.
	Home care systems lack resources, partly because of the Government's problems, so home care is largely carried out by networks previously established by NGOs and other organisations to provide food. Those networks do not have any equipment or food at present, and lack the kits that DFID has funded in other countries. The home carers are extremely good at providing sympathy, warmth and support for children who are about to lose their parents, but they cannot provide anything more tangible. The networks, however, are unable to tackle big increases in school fees and food shortages.
	There is a pressing need to support organisations that are trying to provide child care services but whose trained, qualified and committed staff leave because of the political situation. There is a serious need to deal with security problems. In its response to the paper produced by the all-party group on AIDS, DFID asked exactly what those problems were. Quite simply, there has been a big increase in street children, and children experience problems once they become orphans. In Zimbabwe, I visited a shelter that took children in to prevent them from being harassed by the police on the street. Such services are hard to provide even in this country, where we have robust institutions, plenty of trained staff and sufficient financial resources, but it is much harder to do so in countries with a collapsing infrastructure or which lack a basic legal framework on such issues.
	The political and economic framework in Kenya differs from that in Zimbabwe or Lesotho and, although organisations working with orphans and vulnerable children do not struggle to pay school fees, which are paid by the new Kenyan Government, they struggle to pay for school books, pencils, uniforms and so on. We may not appreciate the enormous lengths to which some organisations go to try to save children from an early death and to improve their health. I saw a little girl, for example, caring for her mother, who was dying from HIV/AIDS. The little girl did not have HIV/AIDS, but she had contracted tuberculosis from her mother, and it had entered her spine. She had substantial physical disabilities, needed to wear a special corset, and required corrective surgery at some stage. That is expensive in this country, but African organisations that are working with those children and saving them from otherwise certain death and putting them on the road to recovery are scratching around to find the money to provide a complex range of services and give those children a reasonable life.
	As I said earlier, drugs are being misused. Time and again, people are given a six-month course of treatment, but they are not properly monitored so the side effects of those powerful drugs are not picked up. Once the course is completed, the patient's health is maintained for a while, only for it to deteriorate again. They may receive more drugs to which they may have an adverse reaction. We must make sure that the drugs that people try to get by hook or by crook because they regard them as a miracle cure are provided in a continuous, safe supply.
	It is widely acknowledged that the UK is at the forefront of donor work and that the UK Government have pioneered the thinking behind that work, but I hope that in developing its commendable work on HIV/AIDS, DFID will carve out a special role for support work with orphans and vulnerable children. I accept that we must make sure that we have enough teachers, protect the economy and support active members of society, but I wonder what will happen when those 12 million children grow up. They will not have gone to school and will not necessarily have secure homes. At best, their health will be compromised and it may be downright poor. In addition, they will not be socialised and will not understand how to relate to society or how to participate in adult life.
	If we sow the wind, we reap the whirlwind, and a generation of children will grow up without parents or the support networks available to most children. If four UK cities each equivalent in size to Birmingham contained only orphans, or if all our constituencies comprised only orphans, the problem would be recognised for what it is—a major calamity needing a range of educational, health, financial and social measures to resolve the difficulties that those children face. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister to take on board the need to counsel them so that those children can come to terms with the grief with which they have to cope, and to make sure that the society of the future is not beset by the problems that those children experience.

Tom Brake: I welcome this debate. Although the Secretary of State and the Minister have been generous with their time in recent months on the issue of HIV/AIDS and there have been regular debates in Westminster Hall, I welcome the opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House. I echo the praise that the Secretary of State offered a number of hon. Members who, through their participation in various all-party groups, are pushing the issue of HIV/AIDS and the way in which the UK can respond to the problem. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on his speech. A couple of days into the job, he has already identified the fact that the international development portfolio is a consensual one. That has positive results in ensuring the continuity of international development, but it is not quite so positive from the point of view of an international development spokesman.
	I should like to concentrate on "Taking Action: the UK's strategy to tackle HIV and AIDS in the developing world", focusing on a small number of targets that it identifies including the target that 25 per cent. fewer young people should be infected by HIV in Africa by 2005 and globally by 2010, as well as the target to increase access to sexual and reproductive health services for women and girls by 2005. I shall then look at the target that 3 million people, including 2 million in Africa, should receive treatment by the end of 2005, and that at least half of those people should be women and children. Finally, I shall look at the target of being on track to slow the progress of HIV/AIDS by 2015.
	The Government, as the Secretary of State explained, have agreed to fund HIV/AIDS-related work to the tune of £1.5 billion over the next three years, which is a positive commitment. We need to ensure that fewer young people are infected with HIV and increase access to sexual and reproductive health services. In July this year, the Government published a position paper on sexual and reproductive health and rights, in which DFID expressed its commitment to addressing social, cultural and economic barriers; to using a rights-based approach; and to tackling issues outside the health sector.
	I think that such an approach is vital to ensuring effective HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care, because as we know, HIV is more than a health issue and has a multitude of social, economic and cultural implications.
	The Secretary of State referred to sex workers—the group that is perhaps most at risk. The rights and interests of women sex workers are particularly vulnerable, and they are disproportionately affected by HIV as a result. DFID's stated commitment is that it will use a rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health issues, including HIV, and if the approach is properly implemented, it will contribute to enhancing rights, reducing the risk of HIV and mitigating its impact. However, as I think he acknowledges, DFID's rights-based approach is not necessarily pursued by other donors.
	I want to bring to the attention of the House and the Secretary of State—I am sure that I do not really need to do so—the impediments imposed by the US Government in respect of making sex work safer. As the House will be aware, in 2003, the US Congress passed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act. The passing of the Act saw a massive and very welcome increase in US appropriations with regard to HIV prevention, treatment and care internationally. However, it creates a number of funding limitations, including a requirement that no funds made available to carry out the purposes of the Act be used to promote or advocate the legalisation or practice of prostitution. One could argue about whether it is appropriate to fund or advocate the legalisation of prostitution, but I do not think that anyone can argue with the fact that the practice is widespread and has been for centuries, if not millennia, and therefore needs to be recognised and addressed.
	In respect of HIV/AIDS and sex workers, experience from many programmes in different regions of the world indicates that successful programmes must have four core elements: building knowledge and self-esteem; providing sex worker-friendly health services; creating an enabling environment for sex workers and their programmes while promoting solidarity and social inclusion through participation of sex workers; and ensuring maximum coverage through forging partnerships with many groups. I do not believe that those aims can be achieved in an environment of seeking to eradicate prostitution, even if the eradication is sought through rehabilitation rather than by the use of criminal law. It is already clear that some groups that have been actively supporting initiatives to improve the health and well-being of sex workers, but are financed by the US Government, have chosen to withdraw from such work. Other such groups are rephrasing the ways in which they describe their activities.
	In the long term, such developments may be more damaging to improving the status of sex workers than the withdrawal of funds. Of course, withdrawing programmes that support sex workers has an impact not only on sex workers, but on their clients, who will continue to use them. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that one of the many lessons that AIDS has taught us is that we need to be open and honest about sexual activity. That is based on more than 20 years' experience and prevention work, and we need to maximise efforts to reduce stigma and improve protection of rights and interests. It is ridiculous to pretend that restricting funds provided to AIDS prevention and support organisations that work in that open and honest way to reduce HIV risk in general, but in respect of sex work in particular, will be effective.
	I hope that the Under-Secretary will set out the Government's position and tell the House what opportunities he and the Government have had to raise the issue with the US Government. If the work has not already been done, I urge him to try to document what impact the Department expects. Has there already been an impact, and if so, can the Government quantify it?
	It is a further target that 3 million people, including 2 million in Africa, should be receiving treatment by the end of 2005, and that at least half of them should be women and children. The Secretary of State referred to the "3 by 5" initiative. It is an aim of the World Health Organisation that 700,000 people should be on anti-retroviral therapy by December 2004, with 1.6 million people on such therapy by June 2005 and 3 million by December 2005. As hon. Members will know, the WHO will not purchase or supply ARVs, but will work in partnership with a range of organisations.
	The Secretary of State has acknowledged that that programme may not deliver the target of having 700,000 people on ARV therapy by the end of 2004. According to UNAIDS, 40 million people were living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2003. At the end of November 2003, only 400,000 people were living with HIV and assessing ARVs in developing countries, and more than a quarter of them lived in Brazil. Furthermore, 400,000 is only 7 per cent. of the total number of people who need treatment. The estimate at the time was that about 6 million people should be receiving it. Currently, only 2 per cent. of those in Africa who need treatment are receiving it.
	There is some good news. As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, the Brazilian authorities have reaffirmed their commitment to building a pharmaceutical plant in Mozambique that will produce generic ARV drugs. A new plant has recently opened in Nigeria to manufacture ARV drugs, thanks to an initiative by Nigerian health professionals working in the US. According to the African AIDS action initiative and the Secretary of State, however, it appears that the "3 by 5" initiative will not deliver. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain whether he agrees that the initiative will not deliver, and tell us by how much he expects it to fall short and whether the UK Government can introduce any measures in the interim to try to get closer to achieving the target.
	I believe that the Under-Secretary has had a meeting with those in the African AIDS action initiative on the subject of its proposal to establish a not-for-profit ARV manufacturing facility in Kenya. It thinks that it could produce affordable treatment that would be accessible to 7.5 million Africans at a cost that is very cheap compared with that of the generic drugs that are currently available. There is one hitch, in that $550 million is required to set up the initiative. I expect a meeting to take place if it has not done so, and perhaps he will set out any feedback about the initiative and tell us whether he thinks that it is credible. As the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will be aware, the "3 by 5" initiative kicks in automatically for the countries that are hardest hit, but what can the Government do to ensure that other countries that are affected are also covered?
	On the target to slow the progress of HIV/AIDS by 2015 and the vexed subject of the poaching, or recruitment, of foreign health workers, clearly, human resources are crucial in fighting the HIV epidemic in low-income countries, and yet, regrettably, in the UK, a large number of health workers still come to this country from abroad. For some developing countries, although not all, that is a significant issue. Clearly, South Africa is in the camp for which it is a significant issue, whereas, according to local embassies at least, India and the Philippines are in the camp for which it is not.
	Interestingly, I raised this issue with the Bulgarians, whose concerns are entirely different in that they have a significant surplus of health workers, and were keen to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the UK Government to formalise some exchange arrangements. Admittedly, that correspondence dates back to February this year. I wonder whether there have been any positive developments in that respect, and whether it has been possible to draw up a memorandum of understanding with the Bulgarians, so that the surplus workers that they say are available and qualified can come to the UK and replace some South African health workers who are desperately needed back in South Africa. The Minister may not be able to respond on that point now, but perhaps he can investigate it and take it up with the Department of Health.
	On the issue of foreign health workers, the Government's strategy "Taking Action" clearly states:
	"We will make sure that the UK's own practices for recruiting to the National Health Service do not further exacerbate countries' human resource constraints. We will take action to strengthen the impact of the Code of Practice on the recruitment of healthcare workers, to prevent the use by the NHS of agencies that recruit healthcare staff directly from developing countries unless a bilateral agreement has been negotiated with the country concerned. We will encourage independent-sector agencies and employers to adopt consistent principles."
	There has been a further announcement—it was made three or four weeks ago—on that subject. In "Taking Action", it is not immediately clear how much more forcefully those rules can be applied than the current ones, which, regrettably, have not been terribly effective at stopping a brain drain of workers from the poorest developing countries. I hope that the Minister can be more specific about what the Government can do on that front.
	On the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the UK has increased its funding, which is welcome. According to several non-governmental organisations, however, the UK is still well short of its contribution if we take into account the UK's share of the global economy and the stated resource needs of the global fund. There is also still an issue—certainly, there was back in May—about how much the global fund is delivering in terms of disbursements, and how many projects are up and running. Back on 10 May 2004, in a written answer, I was told by the Secretary of State that
	"The total amount pledged to the Global Fund to fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria is currently US$5.3 billion. Disbursements by the Global Fund currently total US$285 million."—[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 60W.]
	Interestingly, of the $285 million that has been disbursed, $54.6 million, which I work out at roughly 20 per cent., was on administrative costs. First, therefore, it seems that relatively little has been disbursed, and if the ongoing administrative costs of running the fund are to be 20 per cent., that sounds a rather high figure. Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether the rough calculation that I have made is correct, or whether he would expect those administrative costs to go down, which is possible as things gear up and more projects come on board.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who has returned to his place, referred to the NAO report. I would also welcome clarification from the Minister as to whether the Government now have a better understanding of how much money is being spent by the UK on HIV/AIDS projects.
	My final point on the target is the issue to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who has got up to speed quickly on his brief, referred: the frontiers of the epidemic. Those are countries where prevalence is low but where it could get much higher very quickly, particularly in Asia and eastern Europe. One third of people living with HIV in the world are in countries that do not yet have a generalised epidemic—nearly half the 4.8 billion people in least developed countries live in areas where the epidemic is not yet widespread, even among those most likely to be exposed to it.
	In other words, the potential for a massive expansion is there. Even a small increase in infection rates in populous countries such as China, India or Mexico would represent a massive worsening of the global AIDS burden.

Sally Keeble: It is of course important to think seriously about what might happen in China or elsewhere in Asia if an HIV/ AIDS epidemic got out of control, but there is a difference between what is happening in Asia and what is happening in sub-Saharan Africa, where high rates are compounded by dire poverty and, in some instances, collapsing economies.

Tom Brake: I agree to an extent, but we should not neglect the potential for an epidemic in Asia or eastern Europe. Irrespective of the conditions that prevail, there is still the potential for an epidemic on the scale that we have seen in many African countries.
	Many populous regions in west and north Africa do not yet have generalised HIV epidemics, yet there is considerable migration in those areas. Let me mention in passing that I recently returned from a visit to Ghana with the previous Conservative spokesman on international development, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I suggest that I should not share a visit with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, as the consequence appears to be a downgrading.
	It was clear that the Ghanaian authorities were responding positively to the epidemic. A range of posters and billboards were on show. One billboard displayed the bottom half of a man's body—clad in trousers, I hasten to add—and the caption "If you can't keep it zipped, keep it covered". I thought that that conveyed the message very effectively. There was also a poster recommending abstinence, so there was an equal balance between the different views on how the problem should be tackled.
	The Secretary of State mentioned education. I am glad that he has agreed to meet me, along with the former Conservative spokesman, to discuss our visit. Let me put on record now that there are problems with the fast track in relation to Ghana. Ghana has delivered a plan for education, but is short of funds. I hope that the UK Government will be able to respond.
	I spoke earlier of the need to tackle the frontier of the epidemic. There is clearly a rationale in favour of focusing investment in HIV prevention on vulnerable countries where the epidemic is not yet general. In many such places, particularly throughout Asia, eastern Europe and the Caribbean, the HIV risk is not uniform. Key populations are especially at risk, including injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, and sex workers. When the Minister responds, will he tell us how much DFID is providing for the frontiers of the epidemic, as opposed to areas such as Africa where, regrettably, it is already well established? I should also like to know about the Department's policies and strategies for working with the populations that are most at risk.

Hugh Bayley: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's references to the "frontier" of the disease. The one encouraging aspect of all this is that every child who is born without HIV has a chance of that continuing until puberty. Is not every one of those children the "frontier"? Should we not respond in a way that helps people at the frontier, whether they are in Africa, Asia or eastern and central Europe?

Tom Brake: Obviously I cannot disagree with that. I am simply saying that we need to focus on countries where HIV is prevalent, but also take account of countries where, although it is not yet prevalent in the same way, the potential is there.
	HIV/AIDS is causing death and destruction on a scale not seen since the plague. The UK Government are taking the lead in the fight against HIV/AIDS. They deserve credit for that—I am happy to put that on the record—but even the UK is falling short in its contribution to initiatives such as the global fund.
	With the presidencies of the G8 and EU, the UK has a unique opportunity next year to right that wrong and thereby to help unlock the wallets of less generous donors. I urge the Government to exploit their presidencies ruthlessly. If they do not, tens of millions more people will die.

Neil Gerrard: I welcome the fact that we are having this debate and can discuss the strategy that DIFID published in July. I was a bit worried when the Minister started to flatter me earlier because that does not usually do me much good with people whom I associate with politically, but I return the compliment by saying that it is important that there is political leadership. Both Ministers in the Department and the officials in its HIV team have made some important changes in the past year or two. There has been a shift in priorities in the Department.
	The strategy was inclusive in the way in which it was produced. There was a lot of discussion during the development of the consultation paper and the strategy with people who work in the sector, with non-governmental organisations and with hon. Members whom the Department knew were interested. That makes a difference when such strategies are produced. It is a lesson that one or two other Departments could learn when developing policies. If there had been a little more inclusion of that sort, we might have avoided some of the problems that we have had in other policy areas in the past year or two.

Tom Brake: Top-up fees.

Neil Gerrard: That is a perfect example.
	The strategy said, and the Prime Minister has said this on a number of occasions, too, that the G8 and EU presidencies next year would be critical from our point of view, that, during those presidencies, the UK would ensure that AIDS was at the centrepiece of what we were doing, and that it was an issue of high political importance. I hope that that will be true for the Commission for Africa, too. I hope that, over the next few months, the Department and perhaps the Prime Minister will give some more detail of how we will ensure that, while we have the presidencies of the EU and G8, we will do something in terms of the global HIV strategy. I want to see what was said by the Prime Minister and in the strategy actually happen next year.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that time is short in relation to the UK's presidencies because they start in January and the Government need to be doing the ground work now?

Neil Gerrard: Clearly, those presidencies last a fairly short time. I am sure that work is being done. It needs to be done now, so that we can move in and be able straight away to have the sort of influence that we want.
	The other issue that I want to raise in relation to the strategy is about co-ordination. The Secretary of State talked about donor co-ordination and the three "ones". Another thing that the strategy mentions is the need for coherence in the UK's development of policy. Page 3 of the strategy refers to improving
	"coherence across UK policy-making on AIDS by establishing an informal cross-Whitehall working group on AIDS".
	Perhaps the Minister can tell us what progress has been made on that. It has been said already this afternoon that AIDS is not just a health issue. We want to see action by other Departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Skills. The all-party group on Africa report, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) will talk about later, referred to what could be done perhaps by the Department for Education and Skills to help to train people and to develop skills that will be relevant in African countries.
	So perhaps we can hear a little more about what is being done to set up the cross-departmental working group, so that we can ensure that all the relevant Government Departments are involved in implementing the strategy.
	The third issue, which I have raised for the past two or three years, is our level of commitment to the global fund. I certainly welcome the doubling of our commitment, but despite that doubling, some 10 per cent. only of our spending on HIV/AIDS is going through the global fund. I wonder whether that 10 per cent. versus 90 per cent. spending balance is quite right. Important initiatives that have already been mentioned, such as the "3 by 5" initiative, are going through the global fund. At the present rate of progress, we will get nowhere near the "3 by 5" initiative commitments. That is very sad, and it sends an important political message. The making of big commitments not just by the World Health Organisation but by all the Governments who signed up to the "3 by 5" initiative was symbolic. If we fall well short of them, we will send a really negative message.
	I do not want to dwell on statistics but it is worth considering one or two of the current figures. Of course, all figures are somewhat speculative because they depend on the extrapolation of diagnoses; however, most people who are infected with HIV do not know that they are infected. Our figures depend on such extrapolations to whole populations, on the diagnoses that do take place, on the testing of pregnant women, and so on. This year's UNAIDS report, produced at the Bangkok conference, suggested that between 34 million and 42 million people are currently living with HIV, the median of which is about 38 million. Some 58 million people have been infected at some point, 20 million of whom are already dead.
	The report of the International Labour Organisation, which was also produced at Bangkok, suggests that some 26 million of the international work force are infected and therefore at risk. That shows the potential scale of the economic impact. I was also struck by a figure from South Africa, the scale of which is difficult to comprehend. Johannesburg, a city with a population half that of London, is intending to build five new cemeteries of 120 acres each to cope with the anticipated deaths and burials over the next decade.
	I want to say a little about the figures for the rest of the world, but to do so is in no way to diminish the importance of what is happening in Africa, which my hon. Friend the Member for City of York will discuss in due course. The situation in eastern Europe and central Asia gives real cause for concern. In 1998, some 30,000 people in that region were diagnosed as being probably HIV-positive. In 2004, that figure has risen to 1.5 million—a fiftyfold increase in just six years. In India, 5.1 million people are already infected. The rate of increase in infection in eastern Europe and central Asia is indeed frightening. To date, there have been 58 million infections throughout the world, yet according to the latest estimates, there could be 70 million new infections in Russia, India and China alone by 2010.
	That is only six years away, which is a huge cause for concern.
	I may be straying a little beyond the terms of the debate, but I want to say a few words about Russia—not usually talked about as a developing country. More than 250,000 HIV infections have been reported in Russia, but the real number is probably three, four or five times that. In the Ukraine, 70,000 infections have been reported, when the real figure could be as many as 500,000. We are already starting to see the impact on the economies of those countries and on health spending. It is possible that, purely as a result of HIV infection, Russia's general domestic product could be 10 per cent. down in a few years. The population decline that is already happening there could be grossly accelerated by new infections.
	Russia is reaching the point of having a 1 per cent. infection rate in the general population, and I recall another country being mentioned earlier where it was 0.9 per cent. That 1 per cent. rate is usually regarded by UNAIDS and other UN development programmes as being the point at which the epidemic really tips over into the general population. We have seen what has happened before to infection rates in other countries. Once that 1 per cent. threshold is exceeded, it can be incredibly difficult to turn things back.
	We need to be really concerned about these emerging epidemics. If we do not act now, we could see similar problems developing elsewhere as happened in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to reflect on the lessons of what has worked elsewhere, which is not easy because there is little hard evidence about what interventions appear to have worked in certain places. It is not that easy to take an approach that has worked in one country and transfer it to another. The reasons are often highly complex.
	Uganda is cited again and again. One of the biggest problems there was probably the ending of the civil war. There is no doubt that the spread of HIV has been associated with civil war in parts of Africa. Whatever the reason, it is certainly complex and it is never easy to transfer across to other countries, but we have to take those risks. We need to look at what has worked before and be prepared to spend a bit of money. We are sometimes too demanding in what we expect from experimental programmes that we invest in. We need to be a bit more relaxed. Yes, we are expected to justify the spending of taxpayers' money, but sometimes I feel that we are too demanding in the degree of success that we expect. We should be prepared to take a few more risks because the nature of the crisis is such that, if we are not prepared to do so, some countries will be overwhelmed with the problem.
	I hope that the Department for International Development will, over the next few years, become much more engaged with what is happening in the countries where epidemics are emerging—India, China and eastern Europe, for example, where there is real potential for disaster if we do not act. If we act now, we may be able to do something, but in three or four years' time, it may be too late.
	My final point is about the consequences for us in the UK. Both the existing and the emerging epidemics have serious consequences for us. A very high proportion of those infected are in Commonwealth countries. If the epidemics develop as they might in Asia, even more people will be infected in Commonwealth countries, and many people in or on the borders of the EU could be infected. It is futile to pretend that international mobility will decrease.
	I am sure that the opposite will happen, and with increased international mobility it is pointless to believe, as some on the right would like us to, that we can stop the spread of HIV through physical borders and migration controls.
	People in the UK sometimes discuss "imported infections", which worries me, because it suggests that they think that we can put up barriers and insulate ourselves. We must recognise that the growing infection rate in parts of the world with which we have close connections and increased international mobility mean that we are part of the international epidemic. Too often, we talk as if what is happening in the UK is completely different from what is happening in the rest of the world, but there is one epidemic. The HIV virus does not care about immigration controls and international boundaries.
	I hope that the Minister will confirm that we will not try to impose mandatory testing on people who enter this country, which would be bad for public health. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raises his eyebrows, but mandatory testing would encourage people to avoid testing and find ways around those tests, such as producing false test certificates, which is a good way to spread infection.
	We want people to take the test and receive treatment. I know that we cannot act as the NHS for the world and that we must have rules on who is eligible for treatment, but it will be extremely bad news if we go down the road of mandatory testing. Mandatory testing would sit strangely with the Secretary of State's opening remarks about the need to deal with stigma and discrimination on HIV, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that mandatory testing will be rejected.
	I welcome the development by DFID of an HIV strategy, which is a significant step forward. Let us give the Chancellor credit for the last couple of spending reviews, which have provided big increases in funding. Some of us who have been involved with HIV for a good number of years are pleased by the political interest in the matter. A debate such as this would not have occurred 10 years ago, but now we have a strategy, Ministers who are interested in the subject and a Prime Minister who says that the issue is central to the EU and G8. I want to see the maintenance of that priority status and the implementation of the proposals in the strategy.

Tony Baldry: As on so many international development issues, the House is broadly agreed on this topic. I would not gainsay or disagree with anything in the Secretary of State's comprehensive opening speech. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on his excellent debut at the Dispatch Box in his new role. Given that he was appointed to his brief only early this week, his grip on the detail of such a complex subject was impressive, and we look forward to hearing him frequently at the Dispatch Box.
	I will try not to repeat anything that has been said before, but I shall begin by reinforcing what the Secretary of State said about the report produced by the all-party group for Africa, which is chaired by the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). He is a colleague on the International Development Committee and his group has produced an exemplary report. The group received secretarial support from outside bodies, but its use of the expertise available in both Houses and of expert witness testimonies meant that it was able to produce a first-class report. It is a model for anyone interested in this matter, and I hope that people will take the time to read it.
	As has been noted by both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), however, the problem of HIV/AIDS is not confined to Africa. There is a danger that people sometimes regard HIV/AIDS in the developing world as an African phenomenon, but the disease is growing in intensity in India, China, and in the former republics of the Soviet Union and central Asia. The hon. Gentleman said that some 70 million people may be infected in those countries alone.
	One of the most pernicious aspects of the disease is that many people can be carriers for a very long time without knowing that they are infected. As a result, they do not appreciate that they are harming and affecting other people. We must therefore recognise that it threatens all the developing world and not just Africa—even though the situation there is clearly desperate.
	No one would gainsay anything in the Government's call for action. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State's comments, and Government policy, acknowledge the need to focus on children orphaned by HIV/AIDS. The change in today's business did not allow time for the Select Committee's evidence on orphans and HIV/AIDS to be tagged on to this debate, but anyone interested in this matter should know that the Select Committee took oral and written evidence on orphans and children made vulnerable by AIDS. That evidence offers some compelling reading.
	In its report, the all-party group stated that analysts were already talking about Africa's orphaned generation and that, at current rates of infection, that was unfortunately no exaggeration. It said that at the end of 2003, UNICEF had estimated that 11 million children under the age of 15 in sub-Saharan Africa had lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. The report said that, by 2010, there will be 42 million orphans in the region, of whom 20 million will have lost one or both parents to AIDS.
	The population of the UK around the end of the second world war must have been about 42 million. It is staggering to think that, in Africa by 2010, the equivalent of the UK's population in 1945 will be AIDS orphans. As many people have said, being a member of the International Development Committee is sometimes harrowing but it is also a privilege. When the Committee travelled to Africa to look at DFID projects, one of our collective concerns was whether sufficient attention was being paid to those orphans. At present, as the Secretary of State said, many are being cared for by grandparents whose own life expectancy is limited. Others are being cared for by NGOs, but care arrangements are often totally random.
	Members of the Select Committee were worried whether there was sufficient registration that would ensure that orphans did not get lost in the system. It is vital that those children be registered at birth and have birth certificates; if they do not, they will very often lose out on the little support that is available.
	I recall a harrowing cameo at a feeding station in Malawi. Mothers were queuing to get supplementary feeding rations, and a little girl of 12 came forward with a younger sibling of about six. Their parents had died but because the elder child was not a mother according to the technical definition of the feeding programme, and because no documentation was available, those two children were denied any supplementary food. In fact, they were probably two of the most deserving and needy people in the queue that day.
	In his response to the Committee, the Secretary of State said about birth registration that
	"the UK does not have an independent policy position on birth registration, but will continue to follow the UNICEF lead in this area. Birth registration is important . . . We recognise the need to advocate more strongly that governments do more to develop birth registration services. In the short run community identification is a pragmatic solution to the problem."
	The Secretary of State also acknowledged that there had been a slow national response to children orphaned by AIDS in Africa, and it is an issue to which we will have to pay more attention.
	Earlier this week, the Prime Minister made a speech on climate change in which he set some tough tests for how he will judge the success of the UK presidency of the G8. I would hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State could set themselves some G8 benchmarks for international development, especially HIV/AIDS. I listened closely to the Secretary of State's speech, but the only possible benchmark I heard was when he talked of the need during the G8 presidency to try to ensure closer donor co-ordination. Of course that is vitally important, and with so many potential donors—state and NGOs—we cannot have them all knocking at the doors of underfunded ministries of health. However, it would be helpful to give a clear indication of what the Prime Minister hopes to achieve during the G8 presidency in relation to development and, especially, HIV/AIDS.
	The Secretary of State mentioned health systems in countries such as Malawi. Those of us who have visited Malawi know that about a quarter of the education budget there now goes to pay for the funerals of teachers who have died. However, we must be careful when talking about the health systems of such countries, because we strip out so many trained nurses and doctors from them. Before the summer recess, Ministers in the Department of Health talked about reinforcing the NHS code on the recruitment of nurses from overseas. Early in September, the Minister of State issued a further statement. I have read the statement closely and the code still appears to be only voluntary. I am sure that the House will wish to return to the issue—perhaps in an Adjournment debate in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall—but I am far from convinced that we will avoid the danger of saying on the one hand that we need to do more for health services in countries in Africa and other developing countries and, on the other, continuing to strip out large numbers of nurses from them. One of the saddest scenes that I have seen recently was at the Lilongwe central hospital, which seemed to have almost no qualified medical staff. Prisoner patients with TB were shackled to their beds. A nurse training school cohort had just finished their training, but almost all of them were coming to the UK. Of course, we cannot prevent people with skills using them as best they can in the world markets, but we will have to consider the issue further.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton talked about condoms. There is a danger in HIV debates that we talk a lot about statistics and funds, but do not always address the two means of prevention—condoms and the search for a vaccine. I hope that perhaps one of the targets for the G8 presidency will be better international co-ordination, through the global health fund and other organisations, of the search for a vaccine. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned the work being done by Merck Sharp and Dohme and others, but however good that work is, it is still pitifully little.
	A press release that Merck issued for the debate states that it has opened six major treatment centres since January 2002 in the worst affected regions of Botswana—one of the southern African countries with the best governance and best civil society—that 10,000 patients have been enrolled on the anti-retroviral treatment programme, and that 6,700 people have started therapy. Of course, that is worth while but the resource is tiny when compared with the overwhelming need. We all agree about the problem but much greater focus and energy need to be devoted to finding a vaccine for HIV.
	I want to make a rather boring, machinery-of-government point, which the Secretary of State did not cover. I am not sure why the National Audit Office chose, out of all the Department's programmes, to have a go at its HIV/AIDS programme. In its criticisms of the role of specialist advisers in countries, the letters "HIV" could almost be replaced with "livelihoods", "health" or "gender". With the best will in the world, there must be an element of subjective value judgment about what specialist advisers in the Department's offices say. Not everything can be reduced to hard statistical outcomes—it is difficult to do that. At some stage—perhaps when the Select Committee next goes through the Department's corporate plan and annual review with the permanent secretary—we may need to consider why the Department believes that the NAO picked on that specific issue and what lessons need to be learned about value for money. It is clearly in all our interests to ensure that people outside do not say that money has been wasted.
	We have all read articles in some newspapers that suggest that the HIV/AIDS threat is grossly exaggerated and that the estimates and predictions are wholly unrealistic. When the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, perhaps he could say why he believes that the NAO picked on that specific aspect of the Department's activities—it is one of the few times that the NAO has criticised it—and what the Department believes to be an appropriate response.
	I hope that I have not repeated other hon. Members' remarks in the debate. It is good news that the Government have decided to discuss the issue on the Floor of the House; it demonstrates the importance with which we collectively view it.

Hugh Bayley: At its heart, the debate is not about a disease, drugs or development assistance but about people. It is about children without parents, hospitals without nurses, schools without teachers and fields without furrows because the farmers are too weak to plough the land. It is about death rates that are hugely inflated by the pandemic, knocking holes in the society and economy of many countries in many parts of the world.
	The death toll from AIDS will continue to rise dramatically for at least a decade in Africa and, as other hon. Members have said, in other parts of the world such as Asia and eastern Europe. In the worst affected countries, which are in sub-Saharan Africa, economies will collapse, security will disintegrate and orphaned children will be abandoned as their families and communities are overwhelmed by the worst pandemic and health emergency in human history.
	In those places and countries, decades of development progress will be simply wiped out, and far from achieving the millennium development goals, some of them will move further away from them by 2015.
	The Secretary of State in an excellent introduction to the debate made the point about the fall in life expectancy in so many African countries. In 1960, the average length of life in Botswana was 47 years. By the mid-1980s, it had risen almost to a European level—62 years. Now, the average life expectancy in Botswana is 37 years. In 1960, in Zimbabwe, life expectancy was 50 years. By 1980, it had risen to 59 years, and it has now fallen to 43 years.
	When we look at the scale of the crisis in Africa, we are bound to ask whether it could have been avoided. The answer to that question is, to a great extent, yes, if the political leadership and resources to fight the disease had been there earlier. Again, as the Secretary of State said, there are examples—Uganda and Senegal—where action was taken early and hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved as a result. This is a real lesson for India, China and countries in eastern Europe and central Asia that needs to be learned and acted on. Brazil has learned and acted on it, as has Thailand.
	I congratulate the Government on their "Taking Action" strategy, particularly my hon. Friend the Minister, who has led a remarkable invigoration and change of Government policy. It is really a step change in the UK's response, and it will make a difference to the lives of people in many developing countries around the world. The new strategy puts the UK in a leadership position among donor countries, and other countries need to follow suit. If they do so, an even bigger difference will be made to the lives of more people in developing countries. I am utterly delighted that the Prime Minister has decided to give this issue priority during the UK presidencies of the G8 and the European Union next year. That provides the best opportunity to replicate the sort of step change that we have seen in this country's policy in other donor countries.
	On funding, there is still a need for substantially more money to fight this pandemic. Last year, UNAIDS said in its annual report that donors spent £2.6 billion on HIV and AIDS assistance around the world. It estimates that £6.6 billion will be needed next year and £11 billion by 2007. The UK is rising to the challenge. When the Government came to office in 1997, the UK was spending £40 million of donor assistance on combating HIV/AIDS. Last year, that had risen to £250 million, and the UK's £250 million compares with the United States' £303 million in aid.
	The contributions of other donors around the world are much smaller, however. The third biggest donor is Germany, which contributes about £60 million in aid a year. If the amount of aid given to combat this great health emergency is compared as a proportion of each country's gross national income, Ireland comes top of the list, contributing £430 for every £1 million of its income. That is interesting because it is a Catholic country. Catholic parts of the world have been criticised sometimes for not giving this emergency sufficient priority.
	Second in the list comes the United Kingdom, which spends £300 per £1 million of gross national income, and Norway spends almost exactly the same amount. The Netherlands spends half as much as we do—£150 per £1 million of gross national income. Germany and the United States spend about £60, or one fifth of what we spend as a proportion of our national wealth. Italy, France and Japan spend just £20 per £1 million of their gross national income.
	I would like to say a word or two about how the money is used. One of the things that it is used for is to buy condoms. Development assistance from all countries buys globally about 1 billion condoms a year, but half of them come from one donor country—from this country—and 1 billion is far too few. Yesterday, my all-party Africa group and the all-party AIDS group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), met a distinguished South African AIDS activist and campaigner, Zackie Achmat. He told us that, across Africa, three condoms are provided per sexually active man per year, so it is perfectly clear why the disease is still spreading. In South Africa, the richest country in Africa, the figure is just 10 condoms per sexually active man per year, and there is only one female condom for every six women in South Africa. It is hardly surprising that the sero-prevalence rate among girls is three or four times higher than it is among boys.
	I turn now to the all-party Africa group's report and the Government's response to it. I am embarrassed by the kind things that Members on both sides have said about my role, which should not be said because the work was very much a collective effort by Members of both Houses and all parties. I want to say a particular word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Ours is a fairly newly established group and, at the beginning of our project on HIV/AIDS, we took advice from him and colleagues in his all-party group. That advice was invaluable, and they continued to give us help and advice throughout the production of the report.
	As chair of the all-party group, I should perhaps declare an interest. To produce the report, we received funding from five sources and we are grateful to all of them—the Royal African Society, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Merck and Co. Incorporated, CAFOD and ActionAid.
	I thank the Secretary of State for the detailed and comprehensive written response that he made to the report. We shall make that available, alongside the report itself, on our website and the Royal African Society's website. He was kind to congratulate the committee on the work that it has done, but it is relatively easy to develop policy. It is much harder to commit oneself to policy as a Government. It is heart warming and reassuring to see that so many of the all-party group's recommendations have been fully endorsed by the Government, who have the responsibility to fund the recommendations and carry them out.
	I particularly welcome the statement that the Secretary of State made in his response that prevention must remain the mainstay of action. Of course, it is necessary to put large sums of money into medication for those who are HIV positive, but that must not divert resources from prevention, otherwise this epidemic will continue to grow.
	I was also especially pleased to find out that the Department for International Development will support Governments to incorporate nutrition and food security into their AIDS strategies. That is essential because a good diet is the first line of defence against this disease. I welcome our Government's commitment to work on nutrition with the World Food Programme and UNICEF on their planning on HIV/AIDS.
	I could spend a long time telling the Government how much I welcome and support their response, but there are four aspects of policy on which I would like them to push forward a little further. When the group took evidence, we were told that some €10 billion were unspent in present and former European development funds, so we suggested that the money should be reallocated to programmes to combat HIV/AIDS. I am especially grateful to the director general of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office, Koos Richelle, who responded in detail to us and clarified the situation, as did the Secretary of State in his formal response to our report. We overstated our case, so I am happy to backtrack on that point. However, €1.4 billion of the €11 billion remaining in EDFs six, seven and eight is committed to projects that are currently dormant, and I was glad that the Secretary of State said that that money needs to be recommitted to new projects. When the Under-Secretary winds up the debate, will he give us an indication of the proportion of the €1.4 billion that might be reallocated to work on HIV/AIDS? If, as I suspect, he cannot answer that today, will he undertake to discuss the matter further with the new European Commissioner?
	The group heard evidence from Dr. Peter Piot, the executive director of UNAIDS, that Uganda's Finance Minister had told him that he was unable to use all the aid offered to the country to deal with HIV/AIDS because doing so would breach the International Monetary Fund's public expenditure ceilings. We raised the matter with the IMF and Peter Heller, the deputy director of its fiscal affairs department, came to Westminster to meet us. He subsequently convened a meeting in Washington DC on 28 June of the IMF, the World Bank, the relevant UN agencies and donors, including the United States Agency for International Development and DFID. He reported back the following day to a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's Economics and Security Committee, which was in Washington at the time. I was pleased that he said that the Bretton Woods institutions were examining ways to get around the problem.
	Mr. Heller made the important point that it would be less difficult for the Governments of poor countries to accept aid if it were provided as grants rather than loans because it would put less pressure on their public finances. He also said that aid must be predictable because macro-economic problems are created if aid flows stop and start—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to such problems in his response. Erratic aid flows also create clinical problems. If people are prescribed anti-retroviral drugs for a year or two, but then the money dries up and they no longer receive them, one consequence, in additional to the dire human consequences for the people concerned, is that viral-resistant strains of HIV will emerge. Those strains will no longer be controllable by drugs and will spread to Europe and other parts of the world.
	So there are good clinical and economic reasons for aid flows to be planned years in advance and to be consistent. That underlines the importance of us getting commitments from other donors to do what we have done and to increase dramatically the funding for this particular aid purpose.
	I was especially pleased to see the commitment in the Secretary of State's response to work
	"with partners including the Bretton Woods institutions to ensure that HIV/AIDS funding is treated as exceptional investment and not delayed or reduced because of expenditure frameworks."
	There could not be a clearer commitment to the need for the Bretton Woods institutions to redefine their policies.
	In previous debates on the topic, I have stressed my view that clear guidelines about who will be supplied with anti-retroviral drugs need to be used in developing countries. I have suggested that it might make sense for donors to create a toolkit that developing countries could use to help to work out where the health priorities lie. Clinical priorities are fairly clear about the stage of the disease when it is most appropriate to prescribe drugs, but there are other more difficult issues of social criteria, such as keeping the parents of small children alive so that they do not become orphans, and of economic criteria, such as keeping health services and schools functioning.
	I recognise that it is a difficult policy area, especially for people in Europe because it would be extremely difficult if we were seen to be setting policies here about who should live and who should die in Africa. For reasons that I understand, Ministers have been unwilling to go as far as I should like. In the summer, I went on holiday to Kenya and spent a little time with DFID health advisers looking at the work that our aid programme is doing on HIV/AIDs in and around Kisumu. I saw that clear guidelines are being developed to ensure that priority is given to those who need it most. I was particularly glad to see in the Government's response to the all-party Africa group's report the statement:
	"We fully support the work of UNAIDS, WHO and other UNAIDS co-sponsors in developing normative guidance and toolkits for developing effective multi-sectoral HIV and AIDS responses."
	They have grasped a difficult issue and I am pleased to see a clear statement of policy as a result.
	I welcome the Government's recognition of the need for African Governments to assess current and future impacts of the epidemic on key sectors of the economy, such as health care and education. The Government's response gives examples of where they have supported assessments of the impact of the disease—that is to say, the impact of a number of people dying—on education in Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Botswana. However, a similar assessment needs to be done in every country where prevalence is high—perhaps where it is higher than 5 or 10 per cent. It also needs to be done in all sectors of the economy. Health care and education are probably the two most important, but public sector management, banking and the legal profession could also be considered. The impact on agriculture should certainly be assessed.
	When I was in Malawi during the famine two years ago, I sat around a table with 14 senior officials from its Department of Agriculture. We talked about what would happen if, in a few years' time, they faced another famine. I was interested in how they would cope with it and whether they would learn any lessons, but it was not clear how the lessons would be learned. Afterwards, someone explained that a majority of those 14 officials were HIV-positive and would not be there if there were a famine in five years' time. It is impossible to replace that kind of expertise in two, three or five years. We need to deal with the impact of the disease on key sectors of the economy and to plan now the training of sufficient numbers of people to deal with future needs.
	As a first step, every country affected by the crisis needs not only an assessment of the impact, but the development of a training strategy to enable the human resource gaps that exist now and that will grow in the coming years to be filled. One of the difficulties of training people is that the trainers are dying as fast as those they train. The Secretary of State told us that Malawi is losing teachers more quickly than it can train them, but it is also quickly losing those who train teachers.
	The all-party group asked the Government to examine whether the UK's experience of distance learning—through the Open university, for example—and the BBC World Service's considerable experience of distribution of distance learning packages through broadcasting in developing countries could be applied to Africa. In their response the Government say that
	"Such programmes would need to be implemented through African educational institutions."
	The Government are right—only in-country institutions will know what shape the training should take, how best to distribute it, and how to integrate broadcasting and other distance learning methods, such as internet training packages, with other parts of their training framework. I agree strongly with the Government in that respect. Some important work has already been done: an open university has been established in Tanzania, and our Open university collaborates with the university of South Africa, their distance learning university. I hope that the Government will continue to work on that idea.
	My final quote should be from an African—Zackie Achmat, whom some of us met yesterday and who is a South African AIDS activist and campaigner. We in the UK are not accustomed to NGOs congratulating the Government, but Zackie Achmat said:
	"Blair has done a superb job on increasing the budget for HIV".
	Before Ministers smile too widely, I should say that I am sure that NGOs abroad are just as fickle as NGOs here, and our Government will have to continue innovating in policy terms and strengthening our commitment in this field if they are to retain NGOs' support.
	The G8 and EU presidencies next year will provide enormously important opportunities to get a greater level of commitment from other donor countries. I wish the Government every success in using the presidencies to build a bigger international base of support for the work that they are leading. I shall urge Members of Parliament whom I know in other G8 and EU countries to press their Governments to deliver when they attend summits chaired by our Prime Minister, and I hope that colleagues here will do the same. If we all pull in the same direction, we might achieve not only in this country, but throughout donor countries and the rich world as a whole, the change of policy that is needed because of the nature of the crisis.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004
	Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004
	Employment Relations Act 2004

HIV/AIDS (Developing World)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Hugo Swire: It is with a degree of hesitancy that I rise to take part in this afternoon's debate, not least because those who have spoken thus far have shown far greater knowledge of the subject than I have. They represent the International Development Committee, the all-party Africa group and the all-party AIDS group, all of which have done sterling work on this problem.
	I wanted to take part in our debate, because I believe that it shows the House of Commons and Members of Parliament at their best, in stark contrast to yesterday's proceedings, which showed the House of Commons at its worst. This debate is relevant to the fears and aspirations that my constituents and other people have for our own country and the future of the world. I have been interested in the subject for some time, but I fear that I have nothing original to add this afternoon and will be guilty of repeating points that have been made far better by others. If nothing else, however, that repetition will bring home the horror of the situation.
	Until I decided to speak in our debate, I confess to being woefully ignorant of the devastating nature of the AIDS epidemic. In the mid-1980s, a glamorous lady called Marguerite Littman, who was married to a leading QC called Mark Littman, was, perhaps because she was American, ahead of the game. When AIDS first entered our consciousness, especially in London, she became involved at an early stage with the London Lighthouse, and persuaded the Princess of Wales to take an interest in the Terrence Higgins Trust. As a result, AIDS began to lose its stigma, at a time when the condition was not properly understood. Marguerite Littman's mantle passed to celebrities such as Sir Elton John, and I pause to pay tribute to Bob Geldof, Bono and others, who have campaigned hard on the issue and strengthened the Government's resolve to do something about it.
	The Secretary of State talked about the need for long-term planning and support. In the two decades since the mid-1980s, 65 million people have become infected with HIV and 20 million have died. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said that about 50,000 people are infected in the United Kingdom. As a better-off country we can control the epidemic, but developing countries simply do not have the resources to do so. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) believes that as many as 70 million people could be affected over the next few years, once we know the figures for what might be termed the developing countries in the former eastern bloc. It is estimated that 3.2 million children under 15 live with the virus, and the United Nations forecast for world population growth has been revised down, because nearly 300 million people are expected to die of AIDS before 2050.
	We have talked a lot about how to cure or prevent AIDS. I should be grateful if in his winding-up speech the Under-Secretary would tell us how we can solve the lottery for anti-retroviral drugs. There is a desperate need for a solution, as 6 million people could benefit from those drugs, but only about 300,000 receive them. How many of those individuals receive the treatment for as long as they need it, and how many have it withdrawn at a critical time? We have heard the problems to which that can lead, including mutation of the disease.
	It makes any father of small children and any son, and indeed anyone, weep to think of the devastation that this epidemic is causing in Africa—a continent that has enough of its own problems, including the droughts and famines that we all know about and, unfortunately, the corruption of so many of its leaders. On top of all that, there is the AIDS epidemic, which is a far greater threat than all those other things put together.
	The worrying thing about all the figures that we have been bandying around is how uncertain they are and how many people are still living with the time bomb of not realising that they have AIDS. We have an enormous way to go on education, to which I shall return in a moment.
	We are clearly failing to educate the educators, as so many of them are dying. A figure that struck me as horrific was that 20 per cent. of the adult population in Malawi has HIV, with almost 800,000 orphans needing care. What about the infrastructure of that country? My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said that a quarter of its education budget is being spent on burying teachers. Can that really be so? The Secretary of State himself said that the teachers are dying more quickly than replacements can be trained. Again, we know that the situation has arisen, so what are we going to do? How can we help that country to have the education and teachers that it so desperately needs to prevent that situation from getting any worse?
	The announcements made in the past few months, following the Government's call for action, are extremely welcome. The church and voluntary groups in East Devon are genuinely heartened by the steps that the Government are taking, but some fundamental outstanding problems still need to be addressed. We have heard again this afternoon about how the drug companies are trying to reduce the price of drugs and make them available at a cheaper price than in Europe. For most people, however, the drugs are still far too expensive.
	Whenever we have tried to help Africa, we have seen a problem in terms of distribution. We have still not got our distribution right, as we see when we try to deliver food aid and so on, as there is insufficient infrastructure. I believe that we will have to concentrate on that issue far more in future.
	I do not want to steal the thunder of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who will make the winding-up speech for my party, but I wish to mention a few proposals that I believe go in the right direction, although I do not know whether they go far enough. I believe that we need a far more co-ordinated strategy in which we work closely with the host Governments, pharmaceutical companies and NGOs. I am confused about one thing in that regard—the approach in Uganda. There has seemed to be conflict this afternoon as to whether the multi-agency approach—I think that the Secretary of State said that 20 different organisations had gone into Uganda—was causing confusion. Surely, the fact that those different agencies are going into a country allows them to achieve things that one organisation might be frustrated in trying to achieve. I think that the approach was a positive move.
	The Secretary of State will remember that, some months ago, I came to him on world water day and presented him with a large tap. I have the photograph; indeed, I sent him one to commemorate the occasion. That is another issue that is part and parcel of how we deal with controlling the epidemic. Basic sanitation and hygiene play an important role in combating this dreadful epidemic.
	The question of anti-retroviral drugs needs to be thought through more closely. For instance, should we give more to pregnant women? The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) talked in terms of it being a lottery and having to make judgments as to the best application of those drugs. We must consider that, although it is a difficult choice.
	My final point is on the question of stigma. I started my brief contribution by recollecting the stigma of AIDS when it first came on to the public stage in London 20 or so years ago. People in this country who are HIV-positive, or who have AIDS, no longer suffer that stigma, which is all to the good. In Africa in particular, however, the culture is different. We all know about Chief Buthelezi being so much more open—because so many of his family have died—than President Mbeki, who has been living in a world of his own on the question of AIDS. If we consider the figures for South Africa, it is unbelievable that someone in such a position of responsibility can behave in that way. I urge the Secretary of State to use all his powers to try to put this question on the table again and again when he meets the leaders of those countries.
	The UK's presidency of the G8 and EU next year gives us the opportunity to show how much we care about this epidemic. Equally, we should not ignore the problem in this country, small as we may think it to be. On that point, I part company with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who is returning to his place, on the question of screening people coming into this country. I do not believe that to be divisive; it is common sense, and we would be foolhardy not to take it seriously. In addition, when we talk about AIDS, perhaps we can use our presidency of the G8 and EU to discuss in detail the whole question of the sex trade, and the number of people coming into the united Kingdom from eastern countries, which will cause huge problems and could have far-reaching consequences in relation to the AIDS epidemic in this country.
	This afternoon's debate has been on HIV/AIDS in the developing world. We have concentrated mainly on the African continent. Equally worrying, however, are the statistics that we will start to discover in relation to the eastern bloc, to which Members referred earlier.
	At the outset, I said that I had nothing particularly useful or new to add to the debate. But I am passionately convinced that the British Government have a duty to lead from the front on this. Clearly, apart from the United States, other countries are not doing as much. We have a moral responsibility, and having heard the debate this afternoon—a non-partisan debate—I believe that we have the courage and determination to put this issue back on the agenda and raise public awareness of what, for many people, as I said at the beginning, is the defining challenge of our era.

Julian Brazier: After a number of excellent debates on this subject in Westminster Hall, it is absolutely right that it has been brought to the Chamber. I am delighted to welcome it. It is a sobering thought that, night after night, we see the most harrowing pictures of what is going on in the Darfur region of Sudan, on which I had a meeting just this morning, yet the total death toll so far in that region, with all the horror involved, would amount to only a few months of the grim toll being exacted by AIDS around the world.
	We have had an excellent debate, starting with a speech by the Secretary of State, who set out clearly the Government's programme, which to a large extent commands support in all parts of House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made an outstanding speech, striking a note that echoed around the House—a note described in flattering terms by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who also made a thoughtful speech. Of course, we all expected my hon. Friend not to be controversial.
	This is indeed a grave subject. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) rightly pointed out that in five or six years twice as many people in the world might be infected. I did not agree with him about screening—I think that we should consider it seriously to protect our own population—but that does not for a moment absolve us from our duty to help other countries, and I am proud that we are the second biggest donor.
	Listening to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), I thought of Stalin's cynical observation that one person dead was a tragedy and a million deaths were a statistic. In the individual cases she described, she clearly demonstrated just how much misery, throughout country after country, this ghastly pandemic is bringing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, made a number of important points. Perhaps the most important involved the Prime Minister, who has said that he will move this issue up the agenda at the G8 meeting. It would be interesting to know what he will press the G8 to announce as benchmarks for dealing with this ghastly problem.
	I join a long list of people in praising the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and his all-party group for their work. Because he has raised the point before, the Minister should tell us what pressure we can put on the European Union to tackle the huge sums that are tied up in dormant projects. Let us invest them in AIDS projects, and other good causes. We should not leave them sitting there doing nothing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) described himself as hesitant, but I heard no hesitation. He gave us plenty of food for thought. He referred to trafficking in prostitutes, particularly minors. We had a good debate on that in Westminster Hall yesterday. It requires more action, not just from our Government but from the west as a whole.
	AIDS is a silent enemy, still often hiding behind the wall of stigma and discrimination—even, to some extent, in this country. Although drug treatments and public education have curbed its spread in most parts of the developed world, that is certainly not the case in nearly all third world countries. In Africa alone, 25 million people are living with HIV. There are 12 million AIDS orphans, who have been referred to again and again. The disease is spreading fast in other parts of the third world, particularly in Asia and especially in the Indian sub-continent.
	This is a disease that hits hardest where there is widespread poverty and inadequate health care, where many people go hungry and malnourished, where men leave their rural homes and travel to cities to find work, and where girls and women are ignored when they refuse to have unprotected sex. To be blunt, one of the saddest aspects of AIDS is that it spreads fastest in countries where rape is common, as it is in a number of African countries.
	As a number of speakers pointed out, AIDS is not just a health issue. It affects individuals. It is a disease that shatters families, communities and whole countries. Beyond the huge personal cost of losing a loved one, there is the economic loss to the country—and, of course, the even greater economic loss to the family. In some countries, AIDS is wiping out whole sections of the work force—teachers, farmers, health workers, civil servants and young professionals.
	We have heard a lot today about the deaths of teachers. To give a different statistic, according to the United Nations, in Swaziland, school enrolment has dropped by more than a third because young girls and, to some extent, young men too have been taken out of classrooms to act as carers.
	I make no apologies for returning to the subject of Uganda, the most successful example of all: it has achieved an 80 per cent. reduction in the rate of new infection. I was puzzled by the remarks of the hon. Member for Walthamstow on that matter. The fighting has not entirely stopped in Uganda. There is still a major civil war going on in the north. However, even if it had stopped, I do not understand his logic. The fact that fighting has stopped obviously makes it easier to tackle the problem. However, in most cases, other countries that did not have civil wars have not tackled the problem anything like as effectively.

Neil Gerrard: I was not suggesting that Uganda had not been successful, because clearly the Ugandans have made a significant difference. The point that I was making is that there is surprisingly little hard, research-based evidence about why certain interventions work and others do not. Sometimes, we make assumptions about what has worked, rather than knowing why something worked. There is no doubt that, in many countries in Africa, civil war has been a factor in the spread of HIV. I know that there is still violence in Uganda, but it is not at the level that it was. I am sure that that has been a factor.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is right that where there is greater stability it is much easier to tackle the problem. The fact that the bulk of the country is now peaceful has made it possible to tackle it. I agree on a further point. It is difficult to build a picture of what works and what does not. I strongly suspect that what works best in one country and one culture is not necessarily what will work best elsewhere, but two points about the Ugandan position are important. The first, which has already been mentioned by several hon. Members, is the ABC programme, which is based on a balanced mixture: abstinence, being faithful to the partner and condoms. Interestingly, someone mentioned Botswana, where there is a small Government programme. There is quite a large private sector programme there organised by De Beers. The Ugandan ABC approach has been taken straight off the shelf and is being adopted.
	Secondly, I want to come back to the intervention that I made on the Secretary of State. I understand what he means by the three "ones". He could pass that on to some of his colleagues in other Departments—charities are faced with lots of competing Government Departments giving them small sums of money with different strings attached. However, the point must not be carried through to the extent that one says, "It has all got to be organised by the Government."

Hilary Benn: indicated dissent.

Julian Brazier: I am delighted to see the Secretary of State shake his head. That clearly was not what he meant. One thing that clearly did work in Uganda was that an awful lot of different agencies all pulled together in the same direction. There was strong political leadership, but the Churches, NGOs, local government and the private sector—employers—were heavily involved.
	So many things need to be done. We have covered a large number of them in the debate, but I will dwell on just a couple more; I do not want to detain the House much longer. There has been much reference to the importance of building the infrastructure necessary to administer medical care, focusing particularly on drugs. I particularly like the idea of the hon. Member for City of York of using distance learning through the Open university to rebuild nursing, teaching and training—all the different areas that are needed to rebuild infrastructure. The situation is so bad in some countries that we need a large-scale programme to turn it around. That is one method of getting what in the defence field is often called the multiplier effect.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by using distance learning, capacity will be built in developing countries, but the health workers will then come to the UK to work unless we deal with that problem?

Julian Brazier: I thoroughly agree. The Government argue that some third-world countries are producing a surplus in certain categories, but it is absolutely monstrous that we are a net importer in categories such as nursing in particular—but also in medicine and teaching, among others—from countries that have critical shortages of such skilled professionals. However we choose to organise our public services, it should not be done at the expense of those countries.

Hugh Bayley: I thoroughly agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) when he said that we must stop taking African countries' precious resource of skilled personnel. One possible answer is to train people to do an African health worker's job—to work as a barefoot doctor—or an African teacher's job, so that their skills are tailored to Africa's needs. Incidentally, as a result those skills would be less transferable.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, and such an approach would improve the situation from both angles. Training could probably be completed faster if it were tailored to the local situation, and the non-transferability would be of considerable benefit. Some international bodies would doubtless object to that idea, but it seems to me a splendid one.
	Drugs are at the heart of this issue. The long-term search for a vaccine is vital—literally so; it means the difference between life and death for millions of people—but in the meantime we must focus on anti-retroviral drugs. It is a shame that more credit has not been given where it is due: to the pharmaceutical companies, which have shown considerable responsibility through their willingness to sell drugs in Africa at a tiny fraction of their market price. For example—perhaps I should not pick an example out, but this one comes to mind—six of GlaxoSmithKline's HIV/AIDS medicines are available in the poorest countries at prices that are discounted by up to 90 per cent. compared with developed world prices. We need to bring all the parties involved together to make this work, not just all Governments.
	There is another small but important point. In order to establish whom to treat, we have to think about how to extend testing, which is a question not only of removing stigma, but of making the necessary resources available. Sadly, in some countries the ongoing disproportion between the resources available and the numbers of people involved make such discussions fairly academic. None the less, in countries where the situation is in the balance, and in those that are moving towards the 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. level, testing is absolutely critical in order to prevent that figure from increasing.
	It is far too easy for us in the developed world to think of HIV/AIDS as somebody else's problem. On one point I do agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow: although I am in favour of screening, it will never work completely. Doing something to tackle the problem is right not only in itself—all who are present today believe it right to do something—it is also vital to our own self-interest. It is easy to think of this as somebody else's problem, affecting nameless, faceless people who live a long way away. It is up to us not to pass the buck to another generation. We have to assist and educate; we have to nurture the sufferers and their orphans; we have to warn those who are not yet infected, but whose ignorance about the illness is one cause of its continuation. What our generation does about this problem will determine the course of history for a large part of the third world.

Gareth Thomas: It is a genuine pleasure to respond to what has been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who has been a consistent advocate of more funding and more support for orphans and vulnerable children. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), whose chairmanship of two all-party groups added considerably to the debate that preceded the preparation and presentation to the House of our strategy, entitled "Taking Action".
	I am not sure that I would ever describe appearing before the Select Committee chaired by hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) as a pleasure, but I welcome the International Development Committee's emphasis on AIDS orphans, which helped us in our preparation and our work. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for his helpful remarks in the debate. As ever, it is a pleasure to be presented with a long list of questions about what the Government are doing by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and it is also a genuine pleasure to be able to respond to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on his new position and to wish him a distinguished, but lengthy, spell as the shadow spokesman.
	As all hon. Members have said, it is the scale of the AIDS epidemic that truly shocks. Some 25 million people are infected in sub-Saharan Africa alone, with 3 million of them becoming infected only last year. About 2.2 million people have died in Africa as a direct result of AIDS. If that were not blight enough, we can expect the 11 million orphaned in Africa to rise to 18 million by 2010, which is truly shocking.
	It is right that the focus of our response to the epidemic is on sub-Saharan Africa, but the potential of AIDS to devastate communities in Asia, in the Caribbean, eastern Europe and central Asia must also drive our response to the epidemic. It is estimated that 7.4 million people have already been infected with HIV in Asia and that, outside South Africa, India already has the largest number of people living with HIV. We have a real window of opportunity now to prevent what has happened in sub-Saharan Africa from devastating India and other parts of Asia and the Caribbean. We must seize that opportunity.
	I want to focus in my opening remarks on a comment made by Kofi Annan, who described the face of AIDS today as being increasingly that of a woman. It is worth mentioning that to the House. In sub-Saharan Africa, some 57 per cent. of infected adults are women, and some 75 per cent. of young people infected are women or girls. We know that women are more biologically vulnerable to HIV infection than men, but their susceptibility is reinforced by their lack of social, political and economic power in too many developing countries. That is why, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned, an abstinence-only response to HIV/AIDS is entirely inappropriate. Sadly, most HIV-positive women in Africa have been infected by their husband or sole monogamous partner. We need to recognise that in our response.
	At the heart of the "Taking Action" document that we published in July are five aspects of what we believe to be the necessary response. First, political leadership is important. I hope that the House will agree that the fact that the Prime Minister launched the document with the Secretary of State is a sign of the UK Government's commitment to driving the issue up the international agenda. I shall provide more detail later of what we intend to do on HIV/AIDS during our G8 and EU presidencies. AIDS is consistently part of the agenda of both the Secretary of State and myself in our discussions with the Governments of developing countries.
	In order to help promote our political leadership, I agree absolutely that civil society has a key role to play, as do faith communities. The hon. Member for East Devon rightly pointed out that some people far more famous than us, such as Bono and Bob Geldof, have played a crucial role in raising the issue high on the international agenda.
	International action is the second pillar of our response. We must strengthen the multilateral system, which is one of the reasons why we have increased our funding to UNAIDS and to the World Health Organisation.
	Funding is, of course, the most important factor that we must address in the coming months, and the commitment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister in the comprehensive spending review signalled to the international community the need to do more given the funding that the UK has committed. The EU has a role in providing more funding, and we will address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York on the European development fund with the Commission. It is worth putting it on record that the Commission and European member states have provided more than 50 per cent. of the global fund.
	Fourthly, we need better AIDS programmes. Hon. Members and organisations outside the House rightly said that we needed to do more on orphans and vulnerable children. I hope that they recognise that we have listened to those concerns, and that orphans and vulnerable children have been raised up our agenda in terms of both funding and assistance that DFID country offices offer to developing country Governments.
	Crucially, our decision, which the Secretary of State announced last September, to support the funding of treatment is a significant addition to better AIDS programmes and a more comprehensive response. The final element is better long-term solutions, including better funding for microbicide and vaccine research and—many hon. Members alluded to this point—consistent and continuing funding to develop health systems in country.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to address them. He asked about the support that we are giving to the National Aids Control Organisation in India. NACO has a new head, with whom I am scheduled to hold discussions when I visit India in three weeks' time, and NACO's attitude and response has changed. Sonia Gandhi deserves considerable praise for her speech at the world AIDS conference, which highlighted the fact that India must do more to respond to the threat of AIDS. Our official discussions with NACO and the ministerial discussions that we hope to hold will provide further opportunities to offer support in tackling the epidemic in India.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about South Africa's attitude, which has changed dramatically, and that of President Mbeki in particular. South Africa has embarked on a comprehensive treatment programme on which 8,000 people are already being treated. The South African Government acknowledge that the implementation of their strategy has been slow because of weaknesses in some of their health care systems. Working with organisations in civil society, we have introduced a £10 million programme on AIDS in South Africa, and I hope that the experience of that programme will help the South African Government.
	The hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members asked about the National Audit Office report. The hon. Member for Banbury asked why DFID was particularly targeted, and it was a surprise to us, not least because we were about to start an internal evaluation of our response—perhaps the NAO got wind of it.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked whether we have a separate system for monitoring the impact of the money that we spend. The NAO report recognises that we monitor our response through our core business reporting systems in country. We recognise that we must respond to that specific recommendation, and we are looking to do so. It is also worth recognising that the NAO praised DFID's flexible and country-led response to the epidemic.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the US attitude. As the Secretary of State said, we must recognise the considerable contribution made by both President Bush and the US Congress and Senate in allocating some $15 billion to the fight against AIDS.
	When President Bush visited the UK last November, he insisted on establishing with us a task force to look at how we can work more efficiently together in five African countries—Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zambia and Nigeria. That work is being taken forward. We have worked closely together to offer advice to the Kenyan Government, and all the relevant officers in the five countries that I listed are working with their American counterparts to provide the necessary advice and support.
	I also wish to put on record my appreciation of the support and engagement extended to us by Randall Tobias, the American AIDS tsar. He has, quite rightly in my opinion, been the leader of the work to achieve co-operation.
	The hon. Gentleman alluded to what he called the tension that arises when money is given to civil society organisations, as opposed to budget support. I think that there is a place for both options. The Government's funding of civil society organisations has increased by about 30 per cent. since 1997. By comparison, budget support represents about 15 per cent. of our bilateral funding programme. Where the conditions are right and there is good dialogue about AIDS and other matters, budget support is entirely the right option, but we must never forget the contribution made by civil society organisations, and especially those that are faith based. In many parts of Africa, they provide the tangible response and also the leadership that is needed in the communities that they represent.
	Several hon. Members alluded to the huge benefits arising from the fall in drug prices. Clearly, we need to continue to work with the many pharmaceutical companies that have offered their support to the Governments of affected countries by, among other things, reducing the prices of anti-retroviral drugs. We need to continue to press for lower prices for those drugs, but we must also meet the challenge of getting anti-retroviral drugs out to the communities that need them. Continued support for strengthening health systems in those countries will be fundamental to that process.
	Several hon. Members spoke about the need for better funding for vaccine research, and about the need for better co-ordination in the search for a vaccine. The House will know that the question of an AIDS vaccine was discussed at the American-led G8 summit at Sea Island. The British Government will lead the G8 summit next year, so it will be our responsibility to take that work forward. In due course, we will announce how we intend to progress the vaccine enterprise to which the G8 countries are committed.
	I should point out that the British Government were the first donors to support the international AIDS vaccine initiative. In 2000, we offered some £14 million for that purpose and we are considering making further funding available to drive forward our response.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked a series of questions about the global fund. He was right to say that Britain will double the funding that it will make available over the next three years, and we have committed £250 million to the fund over the period until 2008. He asked whether the Government were entirely convinced about the global fund's effectiveness, and it is important that we recognise that the fund is still in its infancy.
	Teething problems at country level are bound to arise. We have worked closely with the global fund to sort out problems highlighted by our officers, and we have had a very good response at all levels of the fund. Its director, Richard Feacham, has made a huge contribution to the fight against AIDS, and I want to place on record my appreciation of his work.
	Improved and more effective co-ordinating mechanisms are in place. There is a problem-monitoring and evaluation strategy for the global fund's work, but we shall continue to work with the fund to make it even more effective in-country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow asked whether we considered that we had got the right balance in our funding to the global fund. We must recognise that other international bodies have an important contribution to make in the fight against AIDS. That is why we continue to fund the WHO, and why we have offered additional funding to support that body's "3 by 5" initiative. It is also one of the reasons why we are continuing to support UNAIDS and have actually increased our funding. It is the lead international body when it comes to co-ordinating our response.
	We are now offering the right level of funding to the global fund. We announced the increase at this point because the global fund is likely to have to go back to other donors next year to ask them for more money in advance to fund its further programmes. We are demonstrating our confidence in the global fund by committing double the level of support, and I hope that that will help to lever in further resources from other G8 donors and from the private sector for the global fund's important and crucial work.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and others, asked me about the G8 and EU presidencies and how AIDS will feature in them. In the call for action that we published in December, we said that we would make AIDS a centrepiece of both presidencies and that remains our intention. As I have said, we need to produce our response to the American-led initiative at Sea Island to promote a G8 vaccine enterprise, and we shall do so in due course.
	During the Irish presidency of the EU recently, we worked closely with the Irish and Dutch Governments and the Commission to support events with a major focus on microbicides. We are committed to taking that work forward, not least because the prize of a workable microbicide is genuinely in sight. Those in the know suggest that we might be only four or five years away from that point. If we were to develop a microbicide that was only partially effective, some 2.5 million lives could be saved. The development of a microbicide is much more likely in the short term than a vaccine, unfortunately, and that is why we must not lose sight of the importance of funding for microbicide work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North specifically asked about the issue of orphans and vulnerable children. In the evidence I gave to the Committee, I highlighted the fact that fewer than half the countries in Africa had completed a proper analysis of the AIDS epidemic in their country, only six had developed a national policy on how to respond to the OVC crisis, and only four had in place the protective legislation to make the policy a reality. One of our key tasks, which we pledged to undertake in the "Taking Action" document, is to work with UNICEF to put in place the proper responses in the 17 countries in Africa where we are working. I look forward to having the opportunity to demonstrate to my hon. Friend how that work is progressing.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the impact of the private sector. The pharmaceutical sector has a crucial role to play and many British pharmaceutical companies are already doing considerable work. I welcome that. However, it is worth acknowledging how the pharmaceutical market is split at the moment. Some 50 per cent. of the market is in the US, some 25 per cent. is in Europe and just 1 per cent. is in Africa. It is worth bearing in mind the scale of the work we have to do to even up access to medicines, not only for AIDS but for other diseases in developing countries. I look forward to helping to take that work forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow asked about the work of the cross-Whitehall group. We are working with the Department of Trade and Industry on a proper response from the British pharmaceutical industry. We are working with the Department of Health on our engagement with the World Health Organisation and on health worker recruitment, which other hon. Members also raised. We have a code of practice and we have worked to strengthen it. One of the problems so far has been that while it covered NHS organisations, it did not cover many of the private sector organisations that provide health workers for the NHS.
	We are trying to address that by strengthening the code of practice. We have memorandums of understanding with a series of developing-country Governments where health worker leakage—for want of a better phrase—is not a problem. However, we must also recognise that there are many domestic reasons why health workers are leaving and try to address them in country. That involves continuing to focus on ways of strengthening the health systems in those countries.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has done an excellent job of ensuring that our embassies around the world emphasise the call for action and the strategy and highlight to their interlocutors in developing-country Governments what else they can do to promote action against AIDS.
	HIV/AIDS is an enormous challenge and one of the greatest threats to eradicating poverty and achieving the millennium goals that hon. Members of all parties support. However, we believe that the challenge can be met. I hope that hon. Members acknowledge that the call for action and strategy that we published in July constitutes a significant step forward in Britain's response to the fight against AIDS. I look forward, as does the Secretary of State, to continuing to work with hon. Members in implementing that strategy.

Gillian Merron: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn

PETITION
	 — 
	Post Office Closures

Laurence Robertson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of Tewkesbury, bearing 1,710 signatures.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Tewkesbury declares
	That the Petitioners oppose plans to close post offices in the Innsworth, Churchdown and Leckhampton parts of the Tewkesbury constituency.
	Such closures would cause inconvenience to a great many senior citizens and others in receipt of Government benefits and in need of various Post Office services.
	The Petitioners further declare that these closures would cause people to drive to their alternative branches in order to access Post Office services. That would increase car journeys, thereby causing further environmental damage.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate steps to protect postal services in Tewkesbury and throughout the country.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

TRAVELLERS (PLANNING LAW)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

David Ruffley: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring Travellers and planning law to the House's attention once again.
	My concern arises over land that is owned by Travellers or occupied by them with the consent of a landowner and is developed before planning consent is granted. Setting up apparently permanent dwellings by Travellers before anyone knows whether local roads, schools and general practitioner surgeries can cope with such development is simply not sensible. It does not seem to be in the interests of either villagers or Travellers.
	Many hon. Members from all parties have experienced the phenomenon. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) explained on 19 November how, in Startley and Minety, Travellers purchased and moved on to agricultural land. My hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised similar cases earlier this year.
	My constituents in Elmswell and Woolpit have been confronted by a Traveller problem. Travellers moved on to land and made changes to it without planning consent in August.
	Very many of my constituents in those two villages are worried about development that has been carried out prematurely before the appropriate planning procedure has been undertaken. It seems to them like a fait accompli, and they want to know why the character of their villages may be changed without their having any real say in the matter at all.
	A group of Travellers moved on to a site off Norton road between Elmswell and Woolpit on or about Thursday 29 July this year. They immediately started fencing off plots and laid down a hardcore surface to form an access road. By Tuesday 3 August, the field had been sectioned off into 18 plots, with six caravans already on the site. It was then made known that pipes and sewerage lines would be laid later.

Bill Olner: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. What he describes is mirrored in my constituency. Unfortunately, he still has a long way to go. Given all the due legal processes, it has taken three years to remove the Travellers from the site in my constituency. That is not the end of the story: they are still illegally camped in the area. Something must be done to stop what is not a breach of planning regulations but an invasion of land, on which they descend in very ugly order and do such things.

David Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that I do not have three years of letters to come from constituents. The example from his constituency demonstrates what I want to develop in my argument: we have a set of planning laws that do not seem to address residents' concerns.
	To return to the history of the problem in my constituency, my office contacted the leader of Mid Suffolk district council and was told that a council officer had already visited the site and been assured that it was only temporary and would be vacated in a day or two. That proved completely inaccurate. Subsequently, the Travellers told Mid Suffolk district council officers that they had purchased the site and were the legal owners. Throughout 2 and 3 August, my constituency office received calls from concerned villagers, many of whom preferred not to be identified. During the following week, the issue at Woolpit and Elmswell in my constituency attracted national media attention in The Times and the Daily Mail, as well as coverage in the East Anglian Daily Times and regional TV and radio.
	In the light of concern in Woolpit and Elmswell, and the nearby villages of Tostock and Norton, I sent out a leaflet to householders to ask them for their views about the development. I congratulate Woolpit, Elmswell and Tostock parish councils on all discussing the issue very promptly and deciding to oppose a retrospective planning application that the Travellers had made on 10 August. Those parish councils, together with Norton parish council, have proactively and commendably formed a joint forum to keep one another and myself informed of developments.
	Mid Suffolk district council set a deadline of 1 September by which affected residents could make representations about the retrospective planning application. Rather unfortunately, although I have received well over five dozen letters to my office and numerous phone calls objecting to the application by the Travellers, many of my constituents have said that they are afraid to make their concerns formal, as all letters of objection to the council are, of course, in the public domain.
	I want to make it clear, however, that the Travellers have stated that they wish to have happy and harmonious relations with the villagers. To my knowledge, there has been no incident that would seem to cast doubt on the Travellers' expression of good will, and it is only right and proper to make that clear.
	Mid Suffolk district council has advised the Travellers that the works that they have done on site are not authorised and that the council will not rule out possible future enforcement action.
	We are all waiting for the council to set a date for a hearing on the retrospective planning application to be heard by the council's planning committee.
	My constituents in those villages feel strongly that no group of people, whether Travellers or established building companies, should be able to go into the countryside, occupy land—whether purchased by them or not—and claim a fundamental human right to develop it without following the planning rules. Many constituents say that, whenever they want to build, say, an extension or a large shed in their garden, they sense the full force of the law will come down on them pretty swiftly if they do not stick to its letter.
	The Minister will no doubt point out that numerous long-standing powers are available to local authorities in the form of enforcement notices, stop notices and injunctions. But they are time-consuming and costly procedures for councils, especially those councils, such as Mid Suffolk district council, with small budgets that understandably have to be extremely careful about taking action that inevitably racks up large legal and administrative costs.
	I have to say that—this has been the experience of other Members as described in the debates that they have called in the past year—Travellers seem to be particularly well resourced when it comes to obtaining pretty expensive expert legal advice on planning. That seems to be a growing trend. I venture no explanation as to why that might be. In the case in my constituency at Woolpit and Elmswell, an enforcement notice has not so far been sought by the council. It prefers first to take a decision on the pending retrospective planning application.
	The growing perception that Travellers seem to enjoy better rights than those of non-travelling established residents is shown by the extraordinary national reaction in the press to the recent judgment by Judge Weeks QC at Bristol High Court on 2 August this year in the case of North Wiltshire district council v. Toseland and others. In that case, the judge agreed with the council that,
	"The establishment of such a large site and the rapid installation of the infrastructure was a flagrant and deliberate breach of planning control and obviously a pre-planned operation. There was no attempt to comply with paragraph 20 of circular 1/94 which encourages gypsies to consult planning authorities before buying land. The planning application on 8 August"—
	of 2003—
	"was little more than a token gesture."
	Notwithstanding his finding in that regard, the judge found in favour of the Gypsies and against the council's application for an injunction. He did so on the ground that the granting of an injunction would have caused immediate hardship and suffering sufficient to outweigh the public interest in having planning law upheld to the letter.
	Although he was insistent that that should not be construed as an invitation to flout the law, I and many other people doubt that his judgment will be read in that light. The picketing of the judge's house by affected Wiltshire residents who lost the case—that was widely covered in the national press—suggests that they had similar doubts to mine.
	Existing planning enforcement is best able to deal with traditional permanent dwellings and buildings rather than mobile homes or caravans. Powers are available ultimately for the demolition of a dwelling or building developed in contravention of planning law, but that deterrent is likely to be less effective in the case of mobile structures, such as mobile homes or caravans, that can be easily installed and removed at comparatively little cost to the average Traveller if the Travellers wish to stay in an encampment.
	I am extremely careful to point out that I do not wish to prejudge the case of the Travellers at Woolpit and Elmswell but, as I contemplate a potentially controversial few months—I hope not years—for my constituents in the affected villages, I invite the Minister to explain one or two things about the planning regime and how the Government view it.
	Why have the Government not taken up suggestions for strengthening our planning laws more practically in the following respects? When my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay introduced his Greenbelt Protection Bill, it proposed that there should be a requirement on local authorities to provide authorised sites. He suggested that that should be carried out with central Government, regional bodies and county councils. As he pointed out, the allocation for each authority could be met using publicly or privately owned sites. The mandatory requirement in the Bill, which did not proceed, was for local authorities to have an obligation to provide sites, although it seemed rather onerous.
	Will the Minister tell us what steps the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is taking to provide more authorised sites for Travellers? How many such authorised sites with full planning permission and the blessing of local authorities have been created in East Anglia over the past two years? Such authorised sites would have gone through a rigorous planning procedure that would have taken account of residents' feelings and whether the local infrastructure, such as roads, schools and doctors' surgeries, could cope with the extra demand caused by Travellers. Above all, those sites could provide decent facilities for travelling people and their families and protect the freedom of Travellers to follow their traditional way of life, which all of us would say should be respected in the modern, moderate, civilised and compassionate society in which we all want to live in this day and age.
	When the Minister answers my question about more authorised sites, which would represent a positive way forward, will he tell us whether he agrees with the Country Land and Business Association, which said in its submission to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee's inquiry on Gypsy and Traveller sites that a predict and provide approach on sites is rather problematic? It makes the point that the demand for authorised sites from Travellers is difficult to quantify. It is hard to predict when groups of Travellers are likely to move to an area and where they will go.
	St. Edmundsbury borough council, which is also in my constituency, told me this week that it reviews the need for sites for Travellers from time to time. Its last review was conducted 18 months ago when it was determined that there was no need at all for the provision of authorised sites in the council area, which covers the town of Bury St. Edmunds, Haverhill and the areas in between. It told me:
	"Travellers tend to pass through St. Edmundsbury stopping for only relatively short periods."
	That is the council's recent experience, but no one knows whether that is likely to change with more travelling families coming to the area and setting up permanent or semi-permanent sites.
	The matter is topical because I note that the Commission for Racial Equality has this week inspired amendments about authorised sites to the Housing Bill, which is going through the other place. The amendments would put a statutory duty on local authorities to facilitate the provision of sites for Travellers. There will clearly be a public resource implication for increasing the number of authorised sites that are managed in a proper and controlled way, but when the case for such sites is considered, any such costs must be netted off against the current cost to councils of wrestling with the current system, which many believe to be inadequate.
	According to the House of Commons Library, the Cardiff university Traveller law research unit has estimated that the cost to councils and constabularies across the UK has amounted to as much as £18 million. Those costs are associated with moving Gypsies and Travellers on from illegal encampments. I gather that when a group of Travellers were moved on from a site in Chelmsford earlier this year, the total cost to the local authority was reported to be more than £300,000—a staggering sum which excluded the cost of officer time.
	What about other practical solutions? Perhaps the Minister could turn his mind to the following proffered idea. As planning policy guidance note 18 on enforcing planning control explains, it is not an offence to carry out development without first obtaining any planning permission required for that development. However, if there is a wilful, premeditated and deliberate breach of planning laws, with development being undertaken in the full knowledge that planning permission should have been sought in advance, does the Minister think that there is a case for criminalising that activity? Has he considered that? If the Government and his Department have discounted it, will he share his thinking with us?
	As for other practical solutions, will the Minister reconsider the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who during the course of discussions on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill last year sought to introduce an amendment to restrict—not abolish—the use of retrospective planning applications? He wanted to place a duty on local planning authorities and those ruling on appeals to consider any retrospective application as though no development had taken place. That would remedy the situation in which planning applications are viewed with consideration of what has already taken place on a site.
	Clear messages must be sent out to those who wilfully flout planning control. The Town and Country Planning (Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, was specifically designed to address the problem of residential caravans or mobile homes being stationed on land with the consent of the owner but in breach of planning control. His Bill did not proceed, but it would have allowed caravans to be removed much more expeditiously from a site if they were on land in breach of an enforcement or stop notice. Does the Minister think on reflection that the Bill's proposals should be reconsidered?
	In a timely question in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay highlighted
	"the growing problem caused locally by Travellers buying land and then immediately developing it."
	The Prime Minister gave the honest response:
	"I will go back and have a look at the issue again, but it is worth pointing out that we have strengthened the law and the advice we are receiving—although I will check it carefully—is that the law is sufficiently strong . . . to deal with the problem . . . I will look into it carefully myself."—[Official Report, 15 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 1265.]
	I hope that the Prime Minister does that. I suggest he starts by expediting the Government's much vaunted policy review on the position of Gypsies and Travellers. That was set up in 2002, yet we do not appear to have a firm date for the publication of its no doubt important conclusions. There has been far too much delay in making those conclusions known. I hope that the Minister can give a specific date when publication will occur and undertake to create parliamentary time in this place for a full debate on the review's conclusions because the issue is exercising many hon. Members on both sides of the House and many thousands of our constituents.
	In conclusion, residents and Travellers alike feel that not enough is being done by the Government and by the political process to address their respective needs. I hope that the Minister will respond with a set of constructive solutions to meet those needs.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and to the Minister for allowing me to participate in this debate. Fortunately, we have some extra time, so it is possible for me to speak. I say Minister, but I think that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) remains, in fact, a Whip—although Whips are Ministers, of course. Perhaps this debate is the result of a conspiracy between the three of us to give ourselves the opportunity to make a contribution to the House—something that Whips are sometimes not able to do easily.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he expressed his concerns. I think that he struck precisely the right note, and I was encouraged to see the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) nodding frequently in response. The topic commands strong consensus among those who have experienced the problems that my hon. Friend outlined so clearly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) and I had a most constructive and productive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is currently on maternity leave—I understand that she is now a mother again, which I am delighted to hear. We were most encouraged by her attitude and the Government's attitude as it was reflected during that meeting. The Government are to be congratulated on the way in which their thinking is developing.
	In my remarks, I shall refer to specific sites in my constituency. As the Minister did not know that I would speak in the debate, I do not expect him to respond to those site-specific points. In addition, some of the cases in question are being considered by the Minister for Housing and Planning in his quasi-judicial role, so it would be improper of the Government to comment. I fully understand and accept the limitations on what can be said today.
	Travellers have rights—rights that must be respected. We in Worcestershire owe a great debt to the travelling community. Down the years, without the Travellers, the growers of the vale of Evesham would have found their lives extremely difficult. Travellers have served this country well and we have a duty to repay them for some of the things that they have done for us in the past. It is important to understand that context.
	However, something might be changing within the travelling community. Part-time seasonal jobs are no longer available in the vale of Evesham as once they were. The jobs are becoming all-year-round jobs and those who service them now are typically members of ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and other immigrants who work—some short term, some long term—not only in the fields when produce is growing, but in the packhouses during the winter when produce is imported from other countries to provide a continuous flow of product to the supermarkets, which sadly no longer respect seasonality. I think that it is a great loss to British society that we no longer celebrate the seasons and that, instead, foods are available all year round.
	Many of the jobs are now permanent. As a result, Travellers might be finding that there are fewer seasonal jobs to do and that their need to travel is decreasing. It is important to make a distinction between sites provided for Travellers, and sites provided for Travellers who wish to settle. I believe that neither planning law nor human rights legislation as it is interpreted by the courts takes sufficient account of the phenomenon that I have described. A change is taking place that planning law must address.
	I am delighted by the spirit of co-operation that characterises debate on the future of planning law and Travellers. Next week in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, in the Pershore headquarters of Wychavon district council, which serves my constituency, there is to be a meeting between all the parish councils of Wychavon and the residents of Cottenham. The latter have, in many senses, been leading the debate on the future of planning law and the problems associated with unauthorised encampments. The meeting will explore, through an honest and friendly dialogue, how improvements can be made.
	We need a better balance. In my constituency, the permanent settled residents—and sometimes the permanent settled Travellers—voice concern to me that, because of the way in which the planning system is operating, the new people are getting effective rights that they themselves would be denied. That is the problem that must be addressed by planning law.
	I shall explain some of the issues confronting us. At the village of Cleeve Prior in my constituency there has been a heavy concentration of Travellers' sites down the years, and on most of them permanent settled accommodation has been erected.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Peter Luff: Across the border in Warwickshire sites have been closed, and Travellers have moved to Cleeve Prior. The failure to establish a national strategy on site provision is part of the problem. Historically, Worcester city and Wychavon district councils, two of the few councils to be given designated status under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, have established a large number of sites for the travelling community, unlike many surrounding districts in Worcestershire and neighbouring counties. That generosity has made those sites a honeypot, attracting people to an area that has already done a great deal to meet its obligation to the travelling community. Some time ago, there was a dramatic development at Wyre Piddle analogous to the phenomena described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds—the tarmackers came and the caravans were on site before people knew what had happened. A small village has grown up beside the Wyre Piddle bypass, which is a sensitive issue currently under consideration by the Minister. The sheer visibility of the settlement has caused considerable concern, and it is unthinkable that anyone would ever have received permission to build a dwelling there. The courts, however, have taken an extraordinarily lenient view of that development, where there was a careful conspiracy to build, for reasons to do with the misunderstanding of the nature of Travellers, which I discussed earlier. I hope that the Minister makes the right decision.

Bill Olner: It took three years to clear a site in Nuneaton and complete the process that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We had to go through the planning laws and other legislation, an appeal and an inquiry before achieving enforcement and eviction. That lengthy process is frustrating for good constituents in many areas and is expensive for local authorities. Court costs alone were more than £150,000 for my local authority, which also had to bear the cost of clearing the site and so on. There is a failure in the planning system, as we are not talking about Joe Bloggs wanting to build an extension but a deliberate invasion of land. Most of our builders would not be allowed to buy a field in the green belt and build 40 bungalows on it—that is the difficulty that we face.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman made two points. First, the cost to district councils is a serious concern, as they operate on tight budgets, and the threat of a Government cap hangs over them if they exceed council tax increases. Their residents expect them to take strong legal action against abuses of the planning system, but the costs can be huge, so it may be extremely difficult to do so. Secondly, there is a dramatic illustration of the imbalance of the planning system at Wyre Piddle, because next door to the site a local man wants to put up a huge mobile advertisement for turf. Quite rightly, the district council has been brutal, and insisted that he move it. In the field next door, however, there is an authorised but permanent encampment, which is the subject of a planning inquiry instigated by the Minister. Two different planning standards were therefore applied to those adjoining fields. The district council was right to fight both cases. The courts, however, are against one, but not the other.
	A site at Upton Warren is part of the same problem as Wyre Piddle, but when local people explained to the Gypsies and Travellers that what they were doing, while not illegal, was unacceptable, they backed off and are applying for planning permission in the proper way, which I am pleased about. At the village of Aldington, which I visited last week, there have been extraordinary uncontrolled developments, which are subject to enforcement notices from the district council. It will be interesting, however, to see whether those notices can, in fact, be enforced.
	There was a striking demonstration of changing attitudes in Eckington in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire. The local paper, the Evesham Journal, had a big spread on the front page in which travellers said that they wanted to settle and send their children to local schools.
	It invited our sympathy for those people. Well, I am delighted that they should settle. If they now need to settle, I wish us to do all we can to accommodate their doing so, but it must be done in a legal and proper way that does not cause resentment in the other settled community, which would not be allowed to settle in the same place.
	The technique that people used in this case was to apply to all the service providers in good time, so water and electricity supplies were in place. Service providers cannot refuse to provide services. A customer could say, for example, that he was keeping a pony and needed an electric light and a bit of water for its trough. In such circumstances, the water and electricity will be laid on, and the tarmackers will move in late on a Friday, ideally just before a bank holiday weekend. The settlers will whack in a planning application at five o'clock on a Friday, as the district council offices are closing. They know that that means that they can say to the courts that they have applied for planning permission, and they will have the whole bank holiday weekend to construct the development.
	In the case of Eckington, the district council was magnificent. Officers went out over the bank holiday weekend, sacrificing their holiday, to monitor what was going on and explain the limitations. The temporary stop notices might have helped, if they had been able to issue them so close to the bank holiday weekend. The technique is very clever, and it is used in an organised and consistent way that should alarm all of us. It is that abuse of the planning process and the cunning way in which people are getting around it that cause such resentment.
	I commend the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his early-day motions on this subject. In particular, early-day motion 1538, which is headed "Cottenham Residents Gypsy and Traveller Declaration", demonstrates the extraordinary range of interests that one would think were inimical to a solution, but which can be brought together if the language and approach are right. The motion points out that there has been a
	"ground-breaking dialogue . . . commended by the Commission for Racial Equality, Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, Michael Evans, Bishop of East Anglia and the Right Reverend Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford"
	on a "bridge-building initiative". That is what can be done if the matter is approached in the right way.
	Ministers should not be afraid of being firm with those who are seeking to abuse the system. I am attracted to the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about allowing no retrospective permission where there is a wilful attempt to breach planning regulations, as there clearly was at Eckington, and, I would say, at Wyre Piddle.
	Perhaps what we most need, however, is to redefine what we mean by the phrase "travelling community". We have obligations towards travelling Travellers who wish to continue their travelling lifestyle. There are some who wish to do so in a legal way, but another band of people, including those who regularly invade the Hampton Lovett trading estate in my constituency, do not behave legally and do not deserve the same sympathy and assistance. Their abuse of private property is shameful. We need to define those who are genuine Travellers, and those who wish to settle. If the courts were encouraged to look differently at the rights of travelling and settling Travellers, local residents, who are subject to all the strictures of the planning system, might accept that the right balance is being struck.
	The integrity of the planning system is at stake, as is respect for it. This matter strikes at the heart and essentials of our democratic society. I hope that we will now hear some encouraging words.

Paul Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on securing this debate and raising some very important issues relating to Gypsies and unauthorised developments.
	I am sure that all hon. Members who have contributed will agree that Gypsies and Travellers should enjoy the same right as everyone else to establish a decent place to live, as long as they do so within the law. We believe in an inclusive society in which people have the right to pursue that traditional nomadic lifestyle, but, as I say, within the law. Raising the profile of Gypsies and Travellers in today's society is important, and we want to ensure that they have the same rights as others to access essential services without fear of discrimination. There is growing evidence—hon. Members have alluded to it—that Gypsies and Travellers are becoming some of the most vulnerable and marginalised ethnic minorities in Britain. It is against that background that we need to look at the policy that governs their operation and existence.
	A review is going on, and in commenting on the policy and enforcement reviews, I will try to give the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds as clear an idea of dates as possible, for which he asked. The Prime Minister gave a commitment at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, reinforcing the importance that the Government attach to completing those reviews and taking them forward, and to recognising the issues raised by Members today and previously.
	The review that we are undertaking focuses on equality issues for the Gypsy and Traveller community, and the mainstreaming of Gypsy and Traveller issues within wider local and national policy. It examines how we encourage more publicly provided and privately owned sites, and how we overcome some of the unnecessary barriers, which undoubtedly exist, to site provision. We want the planning system to reflect the mainstreaming of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation within the wider social housing context. We support changes that will lead to improvements in the health of Gypsies and Travellers, who have some of the poorest health records among black and ethnic minority groups in Britain.
	As part of that wider policy review, we have started a thorough review of the Gypsy sites planning circular, and we will publish a new draft circular later in the autumn. While the Government recognise that some Gypsies and Travellers wish to embrace a nomadic lifestyle, exactly as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was saying, others wish to have a more settled existence, on local authority or private sites. The review is set against the recognition of some of those fundamental positions.
	Sometimes, among the wider community, there is a lack of understanding of the terms "unauthorised development" and "unauthorised encampment". I shall try to provide clarification. An unauthorised encampment is one in which the land is not owned by those setting it up. An unauthorised development, however, which has been the subject of the main thrust of Members' comments today, is one in which a person or persons, be they Gypsies, Travellers or members of a settled community, purchase land and carry out development for which planning permission is required, but for which, of course, no such permission has been granted. That is considered a breach of planning control and amounts to unauthorised development. Local planning authorities currently have a range of enforcement powers to deal with that.

Bill Olner: Yes, those powers are available, but given what is happening at the moment, with planned invasion of sites and deliberate breaching of the planning regime by setting up such sites, is my hon. Friend sure that the speed at which such action can be taken is adequate? That is the difficulty.

Paul Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am about to come on to the enforcement review, and the review in relation to how we move forward, as every Member who has spoken has questioned whether enough sites are available, and if not, how further sites will be made available. We have heard about the initiatives of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), for example, to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred. I will come to that shortly, as it raises fundamental issues.
	Planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for Gypsy sites, whether local authority or private, are set out in the Department of the Environment circular 1/94, which was published some 10 years ago. The current circular in operation recognises the desire of many Travellers and Gypsies to buy their own sites to develop and manage. Gypsy and Traveller sites constitute development, and therefore require planning permission.
	In formulating their development plans, local authorities are encouraged to discuss Gypsies' accommodation needs with Gypsies themselves, with a view to identifying suitable locations for Gypsy sites in plans where possible. We recognise, though, that for many local authorities, particularly in rural areas, the identification of specific sites is not easy. Where authorities have found it impossible to identify suitable locations, they are required to define clear and realistic criteria as a basis for site provision. It is their responsibility to judge how they frame their policies, which are open to public scrutiny through the normal system and at inquiries.
	The Government believe, however, that the 1994 circular is not working effectively. Those who have spoken today have made it clear that that is their view too, on the basis of their own experience and that of others who have gone before. It is not working, for example, to identify enough appropriate sites. Recent caravan counts have shown that there are about 3,500 caravans on unauthorised developments and encampments in England, about a third of them in the eastern region. I do not have figures relating specifically to the last two years, but a weakness about which I shall say more is the lack of up-to-date information provided in a systematic way.
	The new circular is likely to stress the importance of local authorities' undertaking a proper quantitative assessment of need and for that need to be met, through the new regional planning process, via proper spatial planning and the identification of specific sites or achievable criteria offering some certainty that planning permission will be granted. That is one of the main issues that we can face anywhere in the country. We need to know what we have, and what need we are trying to meet. We should also take account of the changing patterns referred to by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire.

Peter Luff: Measuring need is an important issue. Wychavon, for instance, has historically provided a high level of accommodation for the travelling community. More and more people are attracted to such places, and they become honeypot district council areas. Apparently for that reason Wychavon's need is greater than that of other district councils surrounding it. Certainly a recent planning inspector's report suggested that that is the planning inspectorate's view. Any revision of the circular should take account of that.

Paul Clark: As I have said, the importance of a proper quantitative assessment of need is likely to be stressed. Obviously the matter will be open to consultation, discussion and review. I am sure that Members, including those who are present today, will take the opportunity to comment and raise matters that may be of concern.
	Unfortunately, Gypsies often proceed to establish sites without first obtaining the necessary planning consent. In many cases the locations they choose are inappropriate, for example when they are in the green belt or open countryside. Enforcement action by local authorities against such unauthorised development is therefore common. However, we expect the standard of behaviour among Gypsies and Travellers to be the same as that expected in the settled community, and any antisocial behaviour should be dealt with accordingly.
	The availability of alternative sites can be a consideration when appeals against enforcement notices are determined, but only when they are considered as an alternative to a proposed location that is not suitable in planning terms. Local authorities have a key role to play in identifying suitable locations for sites, and working with Gypsies to help them find land that they can purchase and develop. A few planning authorities have now adopted that as best practice.
	We genuinely believe that if there can be greater understanding and closer co-operation between local authorities and Gypsies, that is the best answer. It can help to reduce the number of instances in which Gypsies establish sites unlawfully, in some cases causing friction between them and the settled community.
	As I have indicated, and as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that I would indicate, there is a range of controls. They are laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which was amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. First, there is the planning contravention notice. Secondly, there is the enforcement notice. Thirdly, there is the power to serve a stop notice. That has the immediate effect of stopping any activity that contravenes planning control guidelines where there are special reasons that justify doing that. If that is contravened, there is the possibility of being prosecuted in the magistrates court with a maximum penalty on conviction of £20,000.
	Fourthly, there is the power to serve a breach of condition notice where there is a failure to comply with any condition or limitation imposed on a grant of planning permission. Fifthly, there is the ability to seek an injunction in the High Court or county court for breach of planning control. Finally, there are improved powers of entry on to land for authorised officers of the local planning authority to obtain information required for enforcement purposes. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to the temporary stop notice that we introduced in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. I noted that he said that, in the case he referred to, it may have had a beneficial effect if it had not been for the bank holiday.
	The temporary stop notice will enable local planning authorities to take prompt action immediately to stop unauthorised development. It can be in force for up to 28 days. That allows planning authorities time to serve an enforcement notice to remedy the breach of planning control. We shall be consulting on regulations setting out under what conditions and in what circumstances the temporary stop notices can be used.
	I referred to enforcement when my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) raised the point about the time and so on. I am conscious of that and of a number of issues relating to the enforcement procedure. That is why we have undertaken a review of the planning enforcement system and we expect to make an announcement about the review later this year.
	Equally, unauthorised encampments cause major concerns and problems for communities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to those yesterday, speaking from his knowledge of his constituency of Sedgefield. Revised guidance on unauthorised encampments was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in February, and has been widely welcomed. With the Home Office, we have consulted on guidance on the new powers against trespassing that were introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, and that will be incorporated in the guidance.
	When one or more caravans are parked on land without the consent of the occupier, the occupier has the common law right to remove them using reasonable force, or, which is advised, to seek a court order for their removal.

Bill Olner: That happens but, immediately after the local authority seeks to go down that legal route when travellers illegally encamp on land that is in its ownership, they start to query whether the authority has a right to do that because it is infringing their human rights. The travellers seem to have a load of legal casework that supersedes the points that the Minister has just made.

Paul Clark: There is a perception that human rights apply only to the few and not to the many. They apply to all of us. The Human Rights Act 1998 was about a number of issues, one of which was to make it possible for anyone in this Chamber or in the country to pursue their human rights through British courts, rather than face the expensive cost of going to Strasbourg. Human rights are relevant in planning matters. There is a need to enforce planning controls. Those rights must be balanced with the qualified rights of people not to have their family life or privacy disrupted.
	Public bodies have to take proportionate decisions. There is a perception that Gypsies, Travellers and other groups have special rights—that they have rights greater than people living in settled communities—but that is not the case. As I said, human rights legislation exists to protect everyone's human rights. Of course, the interests of neighbours must rightly be taken into account, but the planning enforcement decision being considered is against Gypsies and Travellers, so a decision has to be taken that is proportionate. So no such difference exists, but we recognise that the perception exists that a different balance is involved.

Peter Luff: For the record, most people think that this is a bit more than a question of perception. The bungalows built on the sites that I know of on which Gypsies were allowed to remain would otherwise have been pulled down and the sites would have returned to fields. In practice, therefore, there is a difference.

Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that the enforcement powers available to local authorities in respect of unauthorised development are the same and are there to be used, regardless of who is involved. As I said, we are reviewing those powers.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the idea of creating a criminal offence, which was in fact considered by Parliament in debates that culminated in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The majority view then was that criminalisation would be too severe a punishment for breaches of planning control, given that some people might be genuinely unaware of the need to obtain planning permission for relatively minor developments. Of course, others have suggested that it should be criminalised only for the development of Gypsy sites, but Members will recognise that it is neither right nor legal to criminalise only one section of the community.

David Ruffley: My suggestion was not that all breaches be criminalised, but wilful breaches where such wilfulness can be demonstrated. So an inadvertent breach would not be caught by my proposal.

Paul Clark: I suspect that trying to ascertain whether someone acted knowingly or unwittingly would prove a legal minefield and lead to the further delays that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, among others, is concerned about.
	For the first time, housing needs assessments will incorporate Gypsies and Travellers, and local authorities will include such groups in their assessments. Next year, we will issue revised guidance on how that is to be done. A regional consideration of all these needs will then be fed into regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. The number of sites that should be provided in each local authority area will then be indicated.
	If we can know the level of demand—inevitably there are fluctuations, which will doubtless be dealt with in the consultation—we can see where the shortages are and avoid the conflicts that all of us have probably experienced in our constituencies from time to time. This is a complex issue, but I hope that Members appreciate that we take seriously not only accommodating Gypsies, but the needs of clearly settled communities. The right way forward is to encourage Gypsies to consult local authorities on planning matters before buying land on which they intend to live, or for which planning permission will be required for any subsequent development; and for local authorities to make a quantitative assessment of the amount of accommodation required. Spatial planning policies should recognise the need for accommodation consistent with Gypsies' and Travellers' lifestyles.
	I thank the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for raising this important issue, and I trust that we see a way forward together.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.